No abstract available.
Lymphocytes*

No abstract available.
DNA* ; Flow Cytometry*

No abstract available.
DNA* ; Flow Cytometry*

No abstract available.
Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor*

BACKGROUND: The recently developed nucleic acid amplification methods may provide us with very sensitive, specific and rapid tests for the detection of M. tuberculosis. So the aim of this study was to compare the commercial Amplicor M. tuberculosis kit and our in-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with the conventional culture and direct AFB staining method. Materials and METHODS: Among the total of 2,340 clinical specimens, 1,314 sputum samples were tested for the presence of M. tuberculosis by Amplicor PCR and 1,026 sputum samples were tested by in-house PCR performing with resin matrix preparation and DNA extraction, synthesized primer pair, detection using agarose gel electrophoresis. RESULTS: One hundred-seventeen specimens were positive by Amplicor PCR, 105 were positive by in-house PCR, 185 were positive by culture. The sensitivity of the Amplicor PCR for all of the specimens and for smear-positive and smear-negative specimens was 92.9%, 97.9% and 88.2%, respectively after discrepant analysis. The sensitivity of the in-house PCR for all of the specimens and for smear-positive and smear-negative specimens was 80.0%, 93.6% and 65.5%, respectively after discrepant analysis. The specificity of the Amplicor PCR and in-house PCR for all of the specimens was 97.9% and 99.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Amplicor PCR was more sensitive than in-house PCR, but there was another problems such as high false positive rate and high cost. So PCR may certainly become very useful in microbiological laboratories if PCR method is selected according to the laboratory conditions.
DNA ; Electrophoresis, Agar Gel ; Mycobacterium tuberculosis* ; Mycobacterium* ; Polymerase Chain Reaction* ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sputum* ; Tuberculosis

No abstract available.
Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma*

We report a case of weak subgroup A in a patient diagnosed as myelodysplastic syndrome. The patient's red cells was typed as O and his serum had anti-B. Red blood cell antibody screening test was negative. Am was confirmed by adsorption-elution test and saliva study.
Erythrocytes ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Myelodysplastic Syndromes ; Saliva

The hepatitis C vims(HCV) is now known to be the chief cause of transfusion-associated non-A, non-B hepatitis. The ultimate goal of blood donor screening for anti-HCV antibodies is the specific exclusion of vital carriers from the blood donor population. Recently, a third generation anti-HCV screening(Green Cross Center Innotest HCV 3.0 Genedia HCV 3.0 ) and immunoblot assay, Inno-Lia HCV Ab III (Innogenetics) using antigens derived from the core and different nonstructural regions(NS3, NS4 and Ns5) of the HCV viral genome were developed. To evaluate the usefulness of these assays, anti-HCV reaction patterns of the Inno-Lia HCV Ab III or presence of HCV-RNA detected by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction(RT-PCR) were examined samples in which were repeatedly positive or discrepant with Abbott EIA-2, Innotest HCV 3.0 Genedia HCV 3.0 The reaction intensity of Innotest HCV 3.0 Genedia HCV 3.0 was higher than that of Abbott EIA-2. The sensitivity and specificity of Innotest HCV 3.0 and Genedia HCV 3.0 were 92.9% and 86.8%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 72.2% and 97.1%. both. The sensitivity and specificity of Abbott EIA-2 were 100% and 78.9%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 63.6% and 100%, respectively. We concluded that the new third generation HCV EIA reagents can decrease a false positivity of second generation EIA reagents and correlate well with detection of HCV-RNA by RT-PCR.
Blood Donors ; Genome, Viral ; Hepacivirus* ; Hepatitis C Antibodies ; Hepatitis C* ; Hepatitis* ; Humans ; Immunoenzyme Techniques* ; Indicators and Reagents* ; Mass Screening ; Sensitivity and Specificity

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated the BACTEC MGIT 960 system (Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Md, USA), which is fully automated, noninvasive and nonradiometric fluorescent indicator broth detection system, for the growth and detection of mycobacteria with body fluid specimens. METHODS: Total of 1,891 body fluid specimens were included (pleural fluid 752, ascitic fluid 629, cerebrospinal fluid 214, joint fluid 79, peritozol 54, others 163). Specimens were inoculated into MGIT and solid media (3% ogawa, Japan). Polymerase chain reaction was performed for the discrimination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis (MOTT). RESULTS: A total of 62 isolates of mycobacteria were recovered from all culture system. With MGIT system, 56 isolates were recovered, compared with solid system recovered 33 isolates. 29 isolates were recovered with MGIT only and 6 isolates recovered with solid media only. Among 62 isolates recovered, 11 isolates were positive in acid fast stain. 10 isolates were recovered with MGIT. One isolate was recovered with solid system. 51 isolates were negative in acid fast stain. Among this, 46 isolates were recovered with MGIT. The mean detection time was 14.2 days with MGIT system, and 38.2 days with solid media. Contamination rate for each system with body fluid specimens were 4.1% for MGIT and 1.7% for solid media. CONCLUSION: In body fluid, the MGIT system has the advantages of improved detection rate and rapid recovery than solid media to recover mycobacteria.
Ascitic Fluid ; Body Fluids* ; Cerebrospinal Fluid ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Joints ; Mycobacterium ; Mycobacterium tuberculosis ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Tuberculosis

BACKGROUND: Multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDRTB) strains rely on the prompt availability of drug susceptibility test results. We evaluated the reliability and turnaround time of MGIT 960 system, automated version of the MGIT, for antimicrobial susceptibility test of Mycobacteria tuberculosis. METHODS: Ninety six isolates have been tested for susceptibility to isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF), ethambutol (EMB) and streptomycin (SM). Results were compared with those obtained by traditional solid media (absolute concentration method, indirect method). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the susceptibility testing results of the two methods except for EMB. Discrepant results were obtained for 8 isolates (8.3%) with INH, for 3 isolates (3.1%) with RIF, for 13 isolates (13.5%) with EMB, for 10 isolates (10.4%) with SM. Using the indirect method as the gold standard, the sensitivity of INH, RIF, EMB and SM susceptibility testing by the MGIT system were 94.1%, 98.8%, 86.7% and 90.0%, respectively. The specificity were 85.7%, for INH and RIF and 83.3%, for EMB and SM. Turnaround times were significant shorter in MGIT (average 12 days) than in solid media (average 57 days) (P < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the MGIT system is accurate and rapid for INH, RIF and SM susceptibility test of M. tuberculosis, but EMB susceptibility testing requires further evaluation.
Ethambutol ; Isoniazid ; Mycobacterium tuberculosis* ; Mycobacterium* ; Rifampin ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Streptomycin ; Tuberculosis