A novel method for distinguishing between dsDNA and ssRNA virus infections
A novel method for distinguishing between dsDNA and ssRNA virus infections
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcv.2008.04.004
复制
发表时间：
2008-09-01
影响因子：
8.8
通讯作者：
Lilius, Esa-Matti
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nuutila, Jari;Hohenthal, Ulla;Lilius, Esa-Matti
背景资料：为了开始适当的抗病毒治疗，及时了解感染是由DNA还是RNA病毒引起的对临床医生来说是有益的。目的：我们的目的是开发一种区分DNA和RNA病毒感染的方法。在这项前瞻性研究中，白细胞总数和分类计数、血清C反应蛋白水平、红细胞沉降率、对289例发热住院患者的中性粒细胞和单核细胞表面Fc γ RI（CD 64）进行了流式细胞术定量分析。在微生物学确认后，发现89名患者（31%）患有细菌（n = 46）或病毒（n = 43）感染。患者数据与60名健康对照者进行比较。结果：首次注意到，在dsDNA病毒感染（n=21）中，中性粒细胞上的CD 64平均数量是ssRNA病毒感染（n = 22）的5倍以上。DNA病毒评分（DNAVS）点，包括中性粒细胞上CD 64的定量分析以及白细胞的总数和分类计数，在0和8之间变化，并且在区分dsDNA和ssRNA病毒感染方面显示95%的灵敏度和100%的特异性[平均值（S.D.）; DNAVS点：5.4（2.5）vs. 0.3（0.4）; p < 0.001]（C）2008 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
Background: To commence proper antiviral treatment, timely knowledge of whether the infection is caused by DNA or RNA virus would be beneficial for the clinician.Objectives: Our objective was to develop a method for distinguishing between DNA and RNA virus infections.Study design: In this prospective study, total and differential count of leukocytes, serum C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and quantitative flow cytometric analysis of Fc gamma RI (CD64) on neutrophils and monocytes were obtained from 289 hospitalized febrile patients. After microbiological confirmation, 89 patients (31 %) were found to have either bacterial (n = 46) or viral (n = 43) infection. The patient data was compared to 60 healthy controls.Results: For the first time ever, it was noticed that in dsDNA virus infections (n=21) the average amount of CD64 on neutrophils was over five-fold compared to ssRNA virus infections (n = 22).Conclusions: DNA virus score (DNAVS) point, which incorporates quantitative analysis of CD64 on neutrophils and total and differential count of leukocytes, varied between 0 and 8, and displayed 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity in distinguishing between dsDNA and ssRNA virus infections [average (S.D.); DNAVS points: 5.4 (2.5) vs. 0.3 (0.4); p < 0.001] (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.