Diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis by immunoblotting and relationship with other methods

B F Chumpitazi, A Boussaid, H Pelloux, C Racinet, M Bost, A Goullier-Fleuret, B F Chumpitazi, A Boussaid, H Pelloux, C Racinet, M Bost, A Goullier-Fleuret

Abstract

Immunoblot has been evaluated as a diagnostic method for congenital toxoplasmosis. Like enzyme-linked immunofiltration assay (ELIFA), immunoblot can be used to compare antibody patterns and to determine if the antibodies are transmitted by the mother or synthesized by the fetus or infant. Among the 48 infants tested, 27 had congenital toxoplasmosis and 21 were suspected but had none. Reproducibility, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values in immunoblot for immunoglobulins (Igs) G+M+A and/or G+M were 90, 92.6, 89.1, and 92.4%, respectively. G+M immunoblot and G+M ELIFA have better sensitivities than the conventional IgM immunosorbent agglutination assay, IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), IgM immunofluorescence antibody test, in vitro culture, and mouse inoculation. The novel antibodies, i.e., those synthesized by infants against Toxoplasma gondii, were of the IgG class in most cases, although a confident diagnosis could be related to the number of observed Ig classes (G+M, G+A, and G+M+A). Immunoblot has a better resolution than ELIFA. In prenatal diagnosis, immunoblot could be complementary to in vitro culture and mouse inoculation. In the other cases, early detection by immunoblot appears to give the best results when compared with the other serological methods.

References

    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Nov;31(11):2952-9
    1. Presse Med. 1987 Mar 21;16(10):471-4
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Oct;25(10):1926-31
    1. Pediatrics. 1988 Aug;82(2):181-92
    1. J Immunol Methods. 1985 Feb 28;77(1):15-23
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Dec;24(6):1050-4
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Jul;20(1):133-5
    1. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 1993;51(10-11):875-8
    1. Infect Immun. 1987 Mar;55(3):778-83
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Jun;30(6):1436-41
    1. Lancet. 1994 Jul 2;344(8914):36-9
    1. Prenat Diagn. 1992 Feb;12(2):119-27
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Sep;25(9):1597-600
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Dec;30(12):3181-4
    1. Am J Dis Child. 1989 Jun;143(6):724-8
    1. Ann Pediatr (Paris). 1988 Jan;35(1):5-10
    1. Arch Fr Pediatr. 1992 Nov;49(9):839-40
    1. Presse Med. 1966 Oct 15;74(43):2215-6
    1. Lancet. 1985 Mar 2;1(8427):500-4
    1. Infection. 1992 May-Jun;20(3):149-52
    1. Arch Fr Pediatr. 1991 Jun-Jul;48(6):397-403
    1. Lancet. 1986 Feb 1;1(8475):254-6
    1. J Infect Dis. 1985 Nov;152(5):1020-4
    1. Clin Exp Immunol. 1992 Feb;87(2):310-5
    1. N Engl J Med. 1994 Sep 15;331(11):695-9
    1. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 4;318(5):271-5
    1. Presse Med. 1993 Feb 20;22(6):258-62
    1. Parasitol Today. 1993 Oct;9(10):361-4
    1. Infect Immun. 1983 Aug;41(2):683-90
    1. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 May;12(5):396-8
    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986 Aug;70(8):615-22
    1. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1992;21(7):791-4
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1981 Nov;14(5):486-91
    1. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 1992;50(5):315-9
    1. J Infect Dis. 1986 Oct;154(4):650-7
    1. J Immunol. 1983 Aug;131(2):977-83

Source: PubMed

Подписаться