欢迎来到《四川大学学报(医学版)》
刘人捷, 陈昱作, 唐智慧, 等. 四种幽门螺杆菌检测方法的灵敏度比较实验[J]. 四川大学学报(医学版), 2022, 53(3): 421-425. DOI: 10.12182/20220560504
引用本文: 刘人捷, 陈昱作, 唐智慧, 等. 四种幽门螺杆菌检测方法的灵敏度比较实验[J]. 四川大学学报(医学版), 2022, 53(3): 421-425. DOI: 10.12182/20220560504
LIU Ren-jie, CHEN Yu-zuo, TANG Zhi-hui, et al. Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for Helicobacter pylori[J]. Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Sciences), 2022, 53(3): 421-425. DOI: 10.12182/20220560504
Citation: LIU Ren-jie, CHEN Yu-zuo, TANG Zhi-hui, et al. Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for Helicobacter pylori[J]. Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Sciences), 2022, 53(3): 421-425. DOI: 10.12182/20220560504

四种幽门螺杆菌检测方法的灵敏度比较实验

Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for Helicobacter pylori

  • 摘要:
      目的  用标准微生物学方法测定4种幽门螺杆菌实验室常用检测方法的灵敏度并纵向比较各方法的差异性。
      方法  用幽门螺杆菌标准菌株(SS1)为参照,以菌落形成单位(CFU)为测定能力定量分析单位,以不同浓度梯度稀释的SS1菌液为模拟样本,分别对幽门螺杆菌培养法、快速脲酶试验法、抗原检测法、荧光定量PCR法进行测定能力的试验研究,记录4种幽门螺杆菌常用检测方法对应的不同浓度的CFU值并进行差异性分析。
      结果  幽门螺杆菌培养法检测灵敏度为2.0×10 CFU/mL,快速脲酶试验法检测灵敏度为2.0×107 CFU/mL,抗原检测法检测灵敏度为2.0×105 CFU/mL,荧光定量PCR法检测灵敏度为2.0×102 CFU/mL。
      结论  幽门螺杆菌实验室不同检测方法的灵敏度差异显著。培养法和荧光定量PCR法的敏感性较高,但培养法耗时长、操作复杂;抗原检测和快速脲酶试验需要的时间短,但试验敏感性较低。临床以及实验室可根据检测目的选择能识别幽门螺杆菌对应变化的检测方法。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To measure with standard microbiology methods the sensitivity of 4 commonly used testing methods for Helicobacter pylori (Hp) and to conduct a comparative study of the correlations and differences across the 4 methods.
      Methods  With the Hp standard strain (SS1) as the reference, colony forming units (CFU) as the units of quantitative analysis for detection performance, and gradient dilution of SS1 suspension as the simulation sample, we measured the sensitivity of 4 Hp testing methods, including bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test, and quantitative fluorescent PCR. CFU values at different concentrations corresponding to the 4 commonly used Hp testing methods were documented and the correlations and differences were analyzed accordingly.
      Results  The sensitivity of Hp bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test and quantitative fluorescent PCR was 2.0×10 CFU/mL, 2.0×105 CFU/mL, 2.0×105 CFU/mL, and 2.0×102 CFU/mL, respectively.
      Conclusion  The testing turnover time and sensitivity of different laboratory methods for Hp testing varied significantly. The quantitative fluorescent PCR and bacterial culture both showed relatively high sensitivity, but bacterial culture has complicated operation procedures and is too time-consuming. The rapid urease test and antigen test both were simple and quick to perform, but showed low sensitivity. For clinical and laboratory testing of Hp, appropriate testing method that can identify the corresponding changes of Hp should be selected according to the actual testing purpose.

     

/

返回文章
返回