首页 | 官方网站   微博 | 高级检索  
     

四种幽门螺杆菌检测方法的灵敏度比较实验
引用本文:刘人捷,陈昱作,唐智慧,符立发,杨露,王保宁.四种幽门螺杆菌检测方法的灵敏度比较实验[J].四川大学学报(医学版),2022,53(3):421-425.
作者姓名:刘人捷  陈昱作  唐智慧  符立发  杨露  王保宁
作者单位:1.四川大学华西基础医学与法医学院 病原生物学系微生物教研室 (成都 610041)
基金项目:国家重点研发计划;四川省科技厅项目;西藏农牧学院柔性引进人才项目
摘    要:  目的  用标准微生物学方法测定4种幽门螺杆菌实验室常用检测方法的灵敏度并纵向比较各方法的差异性。  方法  用幽门螺杆菌标准菌株(SS1)为参照,以菌落形成单位(CFU)为测定能力定量分析单位,以不同浓度梯度稀释的SS1菌液为模拟样本,分别对幽门螺杆菌培养法、快速脲酶试验法、抗原检测法、荧光定量PCR法进行测定能力的试验研究,记录4种幽门螺杆菌常用检测方法对应的不同浓度的CFU值并进行差异性分析。  结果  幽门螺杆菌培养法检测灵敏度为2.0×10 CFU/mL,快速脲酶试验法检测灵敏度为2.0×107 CFU/mL,抗原检测法检测灵敏度为2.0×105 CFU/mL,荧光定量PCR法检测灵敏度为2.0×102 CFU/mL。  结论  幽门螺杆菌实验室不同检测方法的灵敏度差异显著。培养法和荧光定量PCR法的敏感性较高,但培养法耗时长、操作复杂;抗原检测和快速脲酶试验需要的时间短,但试验敏感性较低。临床以及实验室可根据检测目的选择能识别幽门螺杆菌对应变化的检测方法。

关 键 词:幽门螺杆菌    检测方法    灵敏度
收稿时间:2021-06-28

Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for Helicobacter pylori
LIU Ren-jie,CHEN Yu-zuo,TANG Zhi-hui,FU Li-fa,YANG Lu,WANG Bao-ning.Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for Helicobacter pylori[J].Journal of West China University of Medical Sciences,2022,53(3):421-425.
Authors:LIU Ren-jie  CHEN Yu-zuo  TANG Zhi-hui  FU Li-fa  YANG Lu  WANG Bao-ning
Affiliation:1.Microbiology Teaching and Research Center, Department of Pathogenic Biology, West China School of Basic Medical Sciences and Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
Abstract:  Objective  To measure with standard microbiology methods the sensitivity of 4 commonly used testing methods for Helicobacter pylori (Hp) and to conduct a comparative study of the correlations and differences across the 4 methods.   Methods  With the Hp standard strain (SS1) as the reference, colony forming units (CFU) as the units of quantitative analysis for detection performance, and gradient dilution of SS1 suspension as the simulation sample, we measured the sensitivity of 4 Hp testing methods, including bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test, and quantitative fluorescent PCR. CFU values at different concentrations corresponding to the 4 commonly used Hp testing methods were documented and the correlations and differences were analyzed accordingly.   Results  The sensitivity of Hp bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test and quantitative fluorescent PCR was 2.0×10 CFU/mL, 2.0×105 CFU/mL, 2.0×105 CFU/mL, and 2.0×102 CFU/mL, respectively.   Conclusion  The testing turnover time and sensitivity of different laboratory methods for Hp testing varied significantly. The quantitative fluorescent PCR and bacterial culture both showed relatively high sensitivity, but bacterial culture has complicated operation procedures and is too time-consuming. The rapid urease test and antigen test both were simple and quick to perform, but showed low sensitivity. For clinical and laboratory testing of Hp, appropriate testing method that can identify the corresponding changes of Hp should be selected according to the actual testing purpose.
Keywords:
本文献已被 万方数据 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《四川大学学报(医学版)》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《四川大学学报(医学版)》下载全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司    京ICP备09084417号-23

京公网安备 11010802026262号