JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaneene, J M
Right arrow Articles by Muscoplat, C C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaneene, J M
Right arrow Articles by Muscoplat, C C
J Clin Microbiol. 1978 October; 8(4): 396-401

Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of purified lymphocyte and whole-blood in vitro lymphocyte stimulation assays in detection of Brucella abortus infection in cattle.

J M Kaneene, D W Johnson, R K Anderson and C C Muscoplat

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to compare the sensitivity and specificity of purified lymphocyte and whole-blood in vitro lymphocyte stimulation assays in detection of Brucella abortus infection in cattle. Cattle used were infected with B. abortus field strains or strain 19. Peripheral blood was collected, and lymphocytes for the technique. The blood for the whole-blood lymphocyte stimulation assay was diluted 10-fold with RPMI 1640 medium (without additional serum supplement) and cultured. The two tests were run simultaneously, and B. abortus soluble antigen or concanavalin A was added to the cultures. The cultures were incubated for 6 days and assayed for [3H] thymidine incorporation into their DNA. Generally, cultures of the purified lymphocyte stimulation assay had higher counts per minute than those of the whole-blood lymphocyte stimulation assay, but the stimulation ratios for the two tests were comparable. The two assays were comparable in terms of their sensitivity and specificity as applied to detection of brucella infection in cattle.


J Clin Microbiol. 1978 October; 8(4): 396-401







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

Copyright © 1978 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.