Antibodies against <i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i>

Abstract

Individual antigenic components of Aspergillus fumigatus were identified by crossed immunoelectrophoresis (CIE) using pooled rabbit hyperimmune antiserum. Patients’ sera with enhanced precipitins against A. fumigatus showed antibodies against identical antigenic components in CIE. Identification of the antigenic components by the intermediate gel technique showed high concentrations of antibodies against a small group of antigenic components. No differences were found in the indiviual antigenic components involved in the precipitation reactions between groups of sera with enhanced and normal IgE levels against A. fumigatus. Crossed immunoelectrofocusing was used to determine the isoelectric point of particular components that were identified by CIE.

Evaluation of the Aspergillus Western Blot IgG Kit for Diagnosis of Chronic Aspergillosis

“…Among the diagnostic tests, serological assays that aim to detect antibodies directed against the infecting fungus in host serum are particularly relevant for the diagnosis of CPA in immunocompetent patients (5,7). Although enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are widely used to detect specific antiAspergillus antibodies, immunoprecipitin detection (IPD) is currently considered the reference assay (5,6,8,9). However, several drawbacks associated with IPD have also been described, including protracted results, extended turnaround times, and poor standardization, thereby limiting the possibility of result comparison (6,8).…”

“…Although enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are widely used to detect specific antiAspergillus antibodies, immunoprecipitin detection (IPD) is currently considered the reference assay (5,6,8,9). However, several drawbacks associated with IPD have also been described, including protracted results, extended turnaround times, and poor standardization, thereby limiting the possibility of result comparison (6,8). The interlaboratory reproducibility, as IPD procedures differ between laboratories, and intralaboratory interreader reproducibility of IPD results are relatively poor (6,8).…”

“…However, several drawbacks associated with IPD have also been described, including protracted results, extended turnaround times, and poor standardization, thereby limiting the possibility of result comparison (6,8). The interlaboratory reproducibility, as IPD procedures differ between laboratories, and intralaboratory interreader reproducibility of IPD results are relatively poor (6,8).…”