1972
DOI: 10.1136/sti.48.6.452
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chlamydial infection. Results of micro-immunofluorescence tests for the detection of type-specific antibody in certain chlamydial infections.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
38
1
1

Year Published

1982
1982
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
(2 reference statements)
1
38
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This strain had been previously detected in three clinical specimens and was initially designated Taiwan acute respiratory (TWAR) agent [129][130][131]. In 1989, it was recognized as a new species of the genus Chlamydia, distinct from C. trachomatis and C. psittaci, and named C. pneumoniae [132].…”
Section: History and Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This strain had been previously detected in three clinical specimens and was initially designated Taiwan acute respiratory (TWAR) agent [129][130][131]. In 1989, it was recognized as a new species of the genus Chlamydia, distinct from C. trachomatis and C. psittaci, and named C. pneumoniae [132].…”
Section: History and Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The acronym TWAR is derived from Taiwan-acute respiratory, the designations given to the first University of Washington studies that produced these strains. A similar and perhaps antigenically identical agent was independently isolated in the early 1970s by investigators at the Institute of Ophthalmology in London from the eye of an Iranian child with trachoma (39). TWAR organisms have morphologic, antigenic, and developmental similarities to C. psittaci and are not inhibited in vitro by sulfonamides (87,88).…”
Section: Psittaci Strain Twar Infectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The establishment of this classification was a milestone in chlamydial taxonomy, as it renounced reliance on presumed host, on presumed tissue preference and on serology in grouping these organisms. Before 1980, however, isolations had already been made that would not fit into these two species (Darougar et al, 1980;Dwyer et al, 1972;Forsey & Darougar, 1984). The development of DNA-based classification methods during the 1980s provided new techniques for differentiating chlamydial groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%