Diagnosis of amebiasis in Bangladesh
ABSTRACT Diagnosis of amebiasis by microscopic identification of the parasite in stool and liver abscess pus is insensitive and unable to distinguish the invasive parasite E. histolytica from the commensal parasites such as E. dispar and E. moshkovskii. New approaches to the detection of E. histolytica are based on detection of E. histolytica-specific antigen and DNA in stool and other clinical samples. Several molecular diagnostic tests for diagnosis of amebiasis have been developed and used to diagnose E. histolytica in Bangladesh. We have compared the TechLab E. histolytica-specific antigen detection test with PCR assays and with isoenzyme analysis of cultured amebas. The PCR assays are based on amplification of the multi-copy small subunit ribosomal RNA gene of E. histolytica and E. dispar. PCR assays and antigen detection test had comparable sensitivities when performed directly on fresh stool specimens. The correlation of antigen detection with PCR assays for identification of E. histolytica was excellent. TechLab's E. histolytica- specific antigen detection test was both rapid and simple to perform, making it appropriate for use in the developing world, where amebiasis is most prevalent.
- SourceAvailable from: Nilgun Daldal
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "There are advantages of these methods at some points according to direct microscopy. We classify these advantages as high sensitivity and specificity of ELISA kits, available feature of quick finalization, not needed to experienced personnel as in the evaluation of direct microscopy and avoid crossreaction against other parasites (Leo et al., 2006; Garcia et al., 1993; Haque et al., 2006; Tanyuksel et al., 2005). "
ABSTRACT: Antigen screening were conducted to stool samples from 60 patients admitted to our emergency department with diarrhea complaint between June 2009 and October 2009 by the methods of direct microscopic examination, trichrome staining, ELISA (Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), respectively. As a result of examination of total 60 samples with direct microscopic, trichrome staining and ELISA method, it was detected positive in 7(11.3%), 6(9.7%) and 8(12.9%) samples, respectively. The presence of Entamoeba histolytica has been accepted exactly in the samples in which ELISA test results were positive and necessary treatment of patients has been started immediately. Due to precise pathogen protozoan discrimination has not been performed with the direct microscopic examination, it was emphasized that unnecessary drug therapy would be prevented as a result of detection of presence of E. histolytica specific antigen by ELISA in the samples sent to the laboratory with the diagnosis of amoebiasis by concerned physician.African journal of microbiology research 05/2011; 5:731-733. · 0.54 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this prospective study, among 47 clinically suspected cases of Liver abscess, 46 were diagnosed as of Amoebic origin. Confirmation of Amoebic Liver abscess (ALA) was done by ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene detection from Liver abscess pus using real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). In addition, microscopy for detection of the parasite in Liver abscess pus, and Lectin antigen as well as anti-Lectin antibody were detected by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) from both abscess pus and sera samples. Microscopically, 05 (10.89%) samples were found positive for motile Entamoeba histolytica and E. histolytica rRNA gene were detected in 46 (97.8%) cases by real-time PCR. Among the 47 Liver abscess pus, 12 (25.54%) were E. histolytica Lectin antigen positive and 4/47 (8.51%) of the sera samples were positive for E. histolytica Lectin antigen by ELISA. Anti-Lectin IgG was found positive in 91% (43/47) of the sera investigated. Reviewing the test results, it appears that detection of anti-Lectin IgG by ELISA may be considered as a useful, rapid and convenient immunological tool for the diagnosis of ALA cases.
- Value in Health 11/2006; 9(6). DOI:10.1016/S1098-3015(10)63353-0 · 2.89 Impact Factor