Chlamydia pneumoniae抗体価に関する検討—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay（ELISA）法とmicro-immunofluorescence（MIF）法の比較

Comparison between the Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and the Micro-immunofluorescence (MIF) Method for Detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae Antibodies

　Chlamydia pneumoniaeに対する抗体測定法のmicro-immunofluorescence（MIF）法とenzyme-linked immunosorbent assay（ELISA）法の特性の差は不明である．chlamydiapneumoniae感染が疑われた呼吸器感染症患者28名，36検体についてWestern blot（WB）法でChlamydia pneumoniae抗体を検索し，MIF法および近年開発されたELISA法による抗体の検出精度と比較した．IgGはWBで35検体が陽性で，MIFは感度97％，ELISAは感度91％で有意差はなかった（p＝0.16）．一方，IgAはWBで33検体が陽性で，MIFでは感度76％，ELISAでは感度94％とELISAが有意に優れており（p＜0.05），ELISA法の有用性が示唆された．

Chlamydia pneumoniae (C. pneumoniae) is a commonrespiratory tract pathogen. Detection of C. pneumoniaeantibody is useful for diagnosis, and the microimmuno-fluorescence (MIF) method has also been used. Recentlythe enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) hasbeen newly developed, however, it has not been fullyevaluated. With this in mind, we made a comparativestudy of the accuracy of detection of C. pneumoniaeantibody by MIF and that by ELISA methods, withreference to the Western Blotting (WB) method. Thirty-six sera from twenty-eight patients with suspected C.pneumoniae respiratory tract infection were examined. IgG antibody against C. pneumoniae was positive in 35of 36 specimens examined by the WB method. Therewas no significant difference in sensitivity between MIF(97 %) and ELISA (91 %, p=0.16). IgA antibodyagainst C. pneumoniae was positive in 33 of 36 speci-mens. The sensitivity of ELISA (94 %) was significantlyhigher than MIF (76 %, p＜0.05). In conclusion, theELISA method could be said to be more sensitive for thedetection of serum IgA antibody and, thus, more usefulfor the diagnosis of C. pneumoniae infection.