论文部分内容阅读
本文以酶标记PVP和PEG浓缩人棘球蚴液抗原对47例多房棘蝴病和3例单房棘球蚴病患者、84例其它寄生虫病和其它疾病患者,以及74例健康人血清进行了酶标记抗原对流免疫电泳试验(E-CIEP),并与未标记粗制与PVP和PEG浓缩人棘球蚴液抗原CIEP作了对比。试验表明:E-CIEP敏感性96％,显著高于CIEP(26％和28％),特异性100％,经统计学处理t值各为10.3和9.82,P<0.01。值得推广应用。国产辣根过氧化物酶和进口酶标记的抗原试验敏感性完全相同。用PVP和PEG浓缩的抗原试验结果一致。E-CIEP和PPA-ELISA敏感性相当,各为96％和100％,但E-CIEP无假阳性而PPA-ELISA有3.16％假阳性。试验证明:用4％戊二醛一步法标记抗原,电泳1小时,凝胶片改用蒸馏水漂洗30分钟,烘干后染色的方法有实用价值。
In this paper, enzyme-labeled PVP and PEG-concentrated human Echinococcus antigen for 47 cases of multifarious spina bifida and 3 cases of single-cell echinococcosis, 84 cases of other parasitic diseases and other diseases, and 74 healthy human serum Enzyme-labeled antigen counter-current immunoelectrophoresis (E-CIEP) was performed and compared with unlabeled crude and PVP and PEG-enriched human hydatid fluid antigen CIEP. The results showed that the sensitivity of E-CIEP was 96%, significantly higher than that of CIEP (26% and 28%), and the specificity was 100%. The statistical values of t were 10.3 and 9.82 respectively (P <0.01). Worth promoting application. Domestic horseradish peroxidase and imported enzyme labeled antigen test the same sensitivity. The results of the antigen test with PVP and PEG were consistent. E-CIEP and PPA-ELISA had comparable sensitivities of 96% and 100% each, but there was no false positive for E-CIEP and 3.16% false positive for PPA-ELISA. Experiments show that: with 4% glutaraldehyde one-step labeling of antigen, electrophoresis 1 hour, the gel film changed to rinse with distilled water for 30 minutes, after drying the staining method has practical value.