JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
JCM.00686-07v1
45/8/2737    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Musher, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Graviss, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Musher, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Graviss, E. A.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2007, p. 2737-2739, Vol. 45, No. 8
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00686-07
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxin: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay Results with Results Obtained by Cytotoxicity Assay{triangledown}

Daniel M. Musher,1,2* Atisha Manhas,1,2 Pranav Jain,1 Franziska Nuila,1 Amna Waqar,1 Nancy Logan,1,2 Bernard Marino,1,2 and Edward A. Graviss1,3

Medical Service (Infectious Disease Section), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas,1 Departments of Medicine and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine,2 Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas3

Received 28 March 2007/ Returned for modification 30 May 2007/ Accepted 1 June 2007

Several kinds of laboratory techniques are available to detect Clostridium difficile toxin in fecal samples. Because questions have been raised about the reliability of immunoassays compared to the accepted standard, cytotoxicity assay, we studied three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and one rapid EIA, which demonstrated relatively good sensitivities and specificities compared to cytotoxicity assay.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Infectious Disease Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 794-7386. Fax: (713) 794-7045. E-mail: daniel.musher{at}med.va.gov

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 13 June 2007.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2007, p. 2737-2739, Vol. 45, No. 8
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00686-07
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.