| Literature DB >> 23738023 |
Claudia Abeijon1, Antonio Campos-Neto.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23738023 PMCID: PMC3667753 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Antigen detection capture ELISA for the identification of the proteins Li-isd1, Li-txn1, and Li-ntf2 in urine of VL patients and controls.
Urine specimens were from VL patients and normal, healthy control subjects. The following predetermined capture antibodies concentrations were used to coat the ELISA plates: antigen affinity-purified IgY anti-Li-isd1, 100 ng/well; antigen affinity-purified rabbit anti-Li-txn1 antibodies, 875 ng/well; and purified rabbit IgG anti-Li-ntf2 antibody (2,000 ng/well), or the combination of the three antibodies/well. Samples from VL patients (n = 20) were from Teresina, PI, Brazil. Control samples were from healthy individuals from countries where VL is endemic who were living in the United States. Dashed lines represent the cutoff values calculated as described in the text. These are representative results of at least three experiments performed at different times with the same urine samples and same capture ELISA.
Figure 2Specificity of the capture ELISA assembled with a combination of antibodies specific to Li-isd1, Li-txn1, and Li-ntf2 antigens.
Urine specimens were from patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) (n = 10), Chagas disease (CD) (n = 8), schistosomiasis (SC) (n = 14), or tuberculosis (TB) (n = 10). Assay performed using capture ELISAs assembled all three antibodies in a single well as described in the legend for Figure 1. Dashed line represents the cutoff values, which was calculated using the average of the ODs obtained from the urine specimens from 20 normal, healthy control subjects plus 3 SDs.
Comparison of the sensitivity/specificity of the new VL protein capture ELISA (this study) with that of available published data for a similar VL test that detects leishmanial carbohydrates (KATex).
| Test | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Reference |
|
| 100 | 100 | This study |
|
| 75 | 100 | Salam M et al. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 105:269, 2011 |
| 95.3 | 97 | Ahsan M et al. Mymensingh Med J 19:335, 2010 | |
| 67 | 99 | Sundar S et al. Trop Med Int Health 12:284, 2007 | |
| 57.4 | 84.3 | Diro E et al. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 101:908, 2007 | |
| 57 | 90 | Chappuis F et al. Trop Med Int Health 11:31, 2006 | |
| 87 | 99 | Hommel M et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg 73:269, 2005 | |
| 47.7 | 98.7 | Rijal S et al. Trop Med Int Health 9:724, 2004 | |
| 68 | 100 | Attar ZJ et al. Act Trop 78:11, 2001 |