论文部分内容阅读
目的比较分析酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)、红细胞凝集试验(IHA和RIHA)、胶体金纸上层析试验(GICA)3种免疫学检测技术的敏感性、特异性和稳定性。方法按照《鼠疫检测新技术在灰旱獭鼠疫监测和应急处置中的应用》课题设计要求,以Spss 13.0对2007—2015年乌鲁木齐县鼠疫监测数据整理并进行分析。结果 2007—2015年检测血清样本3 260份,其中灰旱獭血清2 753份、牧犬血清507份,ELISA检出阳性36份、阳性率1.10%,IHA检出阳性13份、阳性率0.40%,两种方法检出阳性率差异有统计学意义(χ~2=10.877 7,P<0.01),检出鼠疫抗体滴度差异无统计学意义(t=0.036 6,P>0.01);共检测以自毙灰旱獭脏器及骨骼为主的各种自毙动物材料322份,检出鼠疫F1抗原分别为ELISA8份、GICA 8份和RIHA 6份,阳性率分别为2.48%、2.48%和1.86%,四步检验法分离出鼠疫菌2株、检菌阳性率0.62%,ELISA与RIHA检出阳性率(χ~2=0.292 1)和检菌率(χ~2=3.465 2)差异无统计学意义(P>0.01),RIHA与四步法检菌率差异亦无统计学意义(χ~2=1.925 5,P>0.01);检测自毙动物脏器标本鼠疫F1抗原ELISA和GICA阳性率一致,二者略高于RIHA和检菌,差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.292 1,P>0.01)。结论在鼠疫监测和应对突发鼠疫疫情处置工作中,3种方法各有其优缺点,联合使用才能发挥各自特长,依据不同情况采用不同的方法,可提高鼠疫监测质量和快速应对鼠疫突发事件能力。
Objective To compare and analyze the sensitivity, specificity and stability of three immunological detection techniques, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), hemagglutination test (IHA and RIHA) and colloidal gold paper chromatography (GICA). Methods According to the design requirements of the topic “The Application of New Plague Detection Technology in the Monitoring and Emergency Management of Platycladus Muscariae”, Spss 13.0 was used to analyze and analyze the plague data from 2007 to 2015 in Urumqi County. Results A total of 3 260 serum samples from 2007 to 2015 were collected, including 2 753 serogroups, 507 serodiagnosis serotypes, 36 serogroups positive in malamutes, 36 positive samples by ELISA, the positive rate was 1.10%, the positive IHA was 13, the positive rate was 0.40% The positive rate of the two methods was significantly different (χ ~ 2 = 10.877 7, P <0.01), there was no significant difference in the antibody titer between the two methods (t = 0.036 6, P> 0.01) 322 self-lethal animals were killed mainly from viscera and skeletal organs, and 8 isolates of ELISA, 8 copies of GICA and 6 copies of RIHA were detected respectively, the positive rates were 2.48%, 2.48% and 1.86% Two strains of Yersinia pestis were isolated by four-step test, the positive rate of bacteria was 0.62%. There was no significant difference between ELISA and RIHA (χ ~ 2 = 0.292 1) and the rate of bacteria (χ ~ 2 = 3.465 2) (Χ ~ 2 = 1.925 5, P> 0.01). The positive rates of F1 antigen ELISA and GICA in the plague specimens of the animals were not significant , Both of which were slightly higher than that of RIHA and test bacteria, the difference was not statistically significant (χ ~ 2 = 0.292 1, P> 0.01). Conclusion In the work of plague surveillance and coping with sudden plague outbreaks, all three methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and they can all play their respective specialties according to different situations, which can improve the quality of plague surveillance and respond quickly to plague emergencies ability.