Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Comparative Study | Journal Article

Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species.

K S Kehl, H Cicirello, P L Havens
K S Kehl
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H Cicirello
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P L Havens
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Newly available assays offer alternatives to conventional microscopic examination for Cryptosporidium spp. We compared two enzyme immunoassays, ProSpect Cryptosporidium microtiter assay (Alexon, Inc., Mountain View, Calif.) and Color Vue Cryptosporidium assay (Serady, Indianapolis, Ind.), and a direct immunofluorescent assay, Merifluor Cryptosporidium kit (Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, Ohio), with acid-fast Kinyoun-staining for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Examinations were performed on 129 stool specimens received from patients during a recent waterborne outbreak. A specimen was considered positive when organisms could be identified visually by acid-fast and immunofluorescent stains or if organisms could be visualized by either acid-fast or immunofluorescent stain and detected by both enzyme immunoassays. The final number of positive specimens was 55. No single procedure detected all 55 positive specimens. Of these, ProSpect and Color Vue detected 52 (sensitivity, 94.5%), and the Kinyoun stain and Merifluor detected 53 (sensitivity, 96.4%). The final number of negative specimens was 74. One false-positive result was seen with both the Kinyoun stain and the ProSpect assay. The Color Vue and ProSpect assays required the most hands-on technologist time. The ProSpect assay and Merifluor kit were easiest to perform. The acid-fast stain was difficult to interpret. The Merifluor kit was easiest to read and was adaptable to both batch and single testing. Overall, the Kinyoun stain and the Merifluor test were preferable to both of the enzyme immunoassays because of the high reagent cost and hands-on time required for the enzyme immunoassays. The difficult interpretation of the Kinyoun stain smears made the Merifluor a more desirable test despite its higher cost. We conclude that all methods tested were equally sensitive and specific for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Ease of use, adaptability to batch testing, and cost are important criteria in determining the method of choice.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species.
K S Kehl, H Cicirello, P L Havens
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 1995, 33 (2) 416-418; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species.
K S Kehl, H Cicirello, P L Havens
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 1995, 33 (2) 416-418; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X