Background/aim: This study included patients who had digestive system complaints between August 2015 and October 2015. The research was designed to compare conventional microscopy with an antigen detection ELISA kit and the TaqMan-based real-time PCR (RT-PCR) technique for detection of Giardia intestinalis in human stool specimens. Materials and methods: Samples were concentrated by formalin-ether sedimentation technique and microscopic examinations were carried out on wet mount slides. A commercially available ELISA kit (Giardia CELISA, Cellabs, Brookvale, Australia) was used for immunoassay. DNA was extracted from fecal samples of about 200 mg using the QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and the LightCycler Nano system (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) was used for the TaqMan-based RT-PCR assay. Results: A total of 94 stool samples, 38 of them diagnosed positive (40.4%) and 56 of them diagnosed negative by microscopy, were selected for evaluation by antigen detection and molecular assays. The prevalence of G. intestinalis infection was found as 46.8% (n: 44) and 79.8% (n: 75) by ELISA and RT-PCR, respectively. RT-PCR revealed by far the highest positivity rate compared to the other two methods. The difference between these methods was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). In comparison to PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of microscopy and ELISA were 50.7% and 100% and 53.3% and 79%, respectively. Conclusion: RT-PCR seems to be much more sensitive and beneficial for rapid and accurate diagnosis of G. intestinalis in human stools.
Background/aim: This study included patients who had digestive system complaints between August 2015 and October 2015. The research was designed to compare conventional microscopy with an antigen detection ELISA kit and the TaqMan-based real-time PCR (RT-PCR) technique for detection of Giardia intestinalis in human stool specimens. Materials and methods: Samples were concentrated by formalin-ether sedimentation technique and microscopic examinations were carried out on wet mount slides. A commercially available ELISA kit (Giardia CELISA, Cellabs, Brookvale, Australia) was used for immunoassay. DNA was extracted from fecal samples of about 200 mg using the QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and the LightCycler Nano system (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) was used for the TaqMan-based RT-PCR assay. Results: A total of 94 stool samples, 38 of them diagnosed positive (40.4%) and 56 of them diagnosed negative by microscopy, were selected for evaluation by antigen detection and molecular assays. The prevalence of G. intestinalisinfection was found as 46.8% (n: 44) and 79.8% (n: 75) by ELISA and RT-PCR, respectively. RT-PCR revealed by far the highest positivity rate compared to the other two methods. The difference between these methods was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). In comparison to PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of microscopy and ELISA were 50.7% and 100% and 53.3% and 79%, respectively. Conclusion: RT-PCR seems to be much more sensitive and beneficial for rapid and accurate diagnosis of G. intestinalis in human stools.