Diagnosis of Bacteroides fragilis infection with counter-immunoelectrophoresis.

Abstract

SUMMARY In a study of 188 patients and 109 controls, the detection of antibody by counterimmunoelectrophoresis was used as a diagnostic aid in human infections with Bacteroides fragilis. It was found that positive results indicated current infection and negative results were not conclusive. The method used was simple, rapid, and easily performed in a routine laboratory, but further work is needed to enhance antigen potency.Bacteroides fragilis strains are often cultured from routine bacteriological specimens in laboratories with adequate anaerobic technique (Leigh, 1974; Peach, 1975). At present the organisms are the most frequent cause of non-sporing Gram-negative anaerobic infection in man. During the past five years the bacteria have been isolated with increasing frequency in many laboratories. Nevertheless the pathogenicity of the isolates is often questioned because the bacteria are a major component of normal body flora (Quick, 1972;Topley, 1975;Willis, 1975). A foul-smelling discharge usually indicates anaerobic infection, butthis sign may be absent in certain lesions in which B. fragilis is a likely infective agent. These include superficial wounds, bed sores, diabetic ulcers, salpingitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, vaginitis, episiotomy wounds, and otitis. In these infections the pathogenic role of B. fragilis can be ascertained either by a good response to treatment with metronidazole or by the finding of specific antibodies in the patient's serum. Recent reports indicate that antibodies can be demonstrated in sera by agglutination, haemagglutination, immunodiffusion, and immunofluorescent methods (Danielsson et al., 1972;Quick et al., 1972;Rissing et al., 1974). The reports show that IgG immunoglobulins are probably more important than IgM in the diagnosis of bacteroides infection. IgG antibodies can be detected efficiently and quickly by counter-immunoelectrophoresis (World Health Organisation, 1973); so far as we know, this technique has not been applied to the detection of antibodies in B. fragilis. We report a study using this method."Surgeon Lieutenant Commander, Royal Navy Received for publication 29 March 1978 Patients and methods INFECTED PATIENTS' TEST SERA Sera were taken from patients suspected of having bacteroides infection because of positive cultures or persistent, foul-smelling, purulent lesions suggesting anaerobic infection. Initial specimens of serum were usually obtained within three days of the isolation of B. fragilis, and subsequent serum samples were taken whenever possible at an interval of about 7-10 days.CONTROL SERA Sera were also collected from patients who had no evidence of infection but had had B. fragilis in high vaginal swabs before a gynaecological operation (uninfected patients). Other control sera were obtained from healthy young male naval recruits and healthy female blood donors.All sera used in this study were taken from blood given for other purposes. COUNTER-IMMUNOELECTROPHORESIS (CIEP)Tests were performed using Shandon Southern U77 electrophoretic appar...

Immune responses to anaerobic gram‐negative bacteria in health and disease

“…The class of immunoglobulins involved was examined by SCHWAN et al [39], who found significant titre changes in IgG and, more irregularly, IgA antibodies. Their findings are indirectly supported by the study of LAMBE et al [27], who used indirect immunofluorescence, and by LINDBERG et al [30] and OKUBADWO et al [33], using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and counter-immunoelectrophoresis, respectively. These methods have in common that they mainly measure IgG antibodies.…”

“…Studies from recent years have mainly dealt with the immune response to B. fragilis ( Table 2). A number of different serological methods have been used, including sensitive assays like counter-immunoelectrophoresis [33], indirect haemagglutination [I 2, 391, indirect immunofluorescence [ 12. 27, 391. enzyme-linked imrnunosorbent assay [30] and radioactive antigen-binding assay [24].…”

Comparison of culture and isolation methods for Clostridioides difficile and other anaerobes from stool samples in a routine microbiological laboratory practice

“…Доступные тестсистемы в рутинной практике для микро биологической лаборатории неудобны и имеют высокую стоимость [30,31]. Данные, полученные в нашем иссле довании, показывают, что все вышеперечисленные ми кроорганизмы можно выделять и идентифицировать, не используя отдельные селективные среды, а приме няя только стандартные, доступные в рутинной практике среды для культивирования анаэробной флоры.…”