This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
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 arrowReprints and Permissions
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 Gilligan, P. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gilligan, P. H.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2008, p. 1523-1525, Vol. 46, No. 4
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.02100-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Is a Two-Step Glutamate Dehyrogenase Antigen-Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay Algorithm Superior to the Premier Toxin A and B Enzyme Immunoassay for Laboratory Detection of Clostridium difficile?{triangledown}

Peter H. Gilligan*

Clinical Microbiology-Immunology Laboratories, University of North Carolina Hospitals, and Departments of Microbiology-Immunology and Pathology-Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Received 31 October 2007/ Returned for modification 11 December 2007/ Accepted 25 January 2008

A two-step algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile by the use of C. Diff Quik Chek (TechLab, Blacksburg, VA) and a tissue culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay was found to be more sensitive than the widely used solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Premier toxin A and B EIA (Meridian Bioscience, Cincinnati, OH), and a newly developed, rapid single-test EIA for C. difficile toxins A and B (Tox A/B Quik Chek; TechLab).

* Mailing address: Clinical Microbiology-Immunology Laboratories, UNC Hospitals, CB 7600, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. Phone: (919) 966-6313. Fax: (919) 966-0486. E-mail: pgilliga{at}unch.unc.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 6 February 2008.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2008, p. 1523-1525, Vol. 46, No. 4
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.02100-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Huang, H., Weintraub, A., Fang, H., Nord, C. E. (2009). Comparison of a Commercial Multiplex Real-Time PCR to the Cell Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 3729-3731 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Eastwood, K., Else, P., Charlett, A., Wilcox, M. (2009). Comparison of Nine Commercially Available Clostridium difficile Toxin Detection Assays, a Real-Time PCR Assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a Glutamate Dehydrogenase Detection Assay to Cytotoxin Testing and Cytotoxigenic Culture Methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 3211-3217 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Peterson, L. R., Robicsek, A. (2009). Does My Patient Have Clostridium difficile Infection?. ANN INTERN MED 151: 176-179 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Stamper, P. D., Alcabasa, R., Aird, D., Babiker, W., Wehrlin, J., Ikpeama, I., Carroll, K. C. (2009). Comparison of a Commercial Real-Time PCR Assay for tcdB Detection to a Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Assay and Toxigenic Culture for Direct Detection of Toxin-Producing Clostridium difficile in Clinical Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 373-378 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • She, R. C., Durrant, R. J., Petti, C. A. (2009). Evaluation of Enzyme Immunoassays to Detect Clostridium difficile Toxin From Anaerobic Stool Culture. Am J Clin Pathol 131: 81-84 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»