1985
DOI: 10.1080/00480169.1985.35148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An enzyme labelled immunosorbent assay for measuringClostridium perfringensepsilon toxin in gut contents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…perfringens can easily lose the plasmid encoding ε toxin during culture and isolation, the presence of the ε toxin gene cannot unambiguously prove the presence (and the quantity) of epsilon toxin and prototoxin and finally those techniques are time-consuming and time to results vary from several hours to several days. Thus, there have been many reports of alternative methods using immunoassays for direct ε toxin protein detection by counterimmunoelectrophoresis [16], latex agglutination test [17] and several sandwich enzyme immunoassays using either polyclonal antibodies [1820] or monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies [16,21]. Three of these immunotechniques were compared with the mouse neutralization test [16], and results showed that there was a marked inconsistency among the four techniques to detect ε toxin in different spiked or naturally contaminated ovine intestinal contents (with presumptive or experimental enterotoxemia).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…perfringens can easily lose the plasmid encoding ε toxin during culture and isolation, the presence of the ε toxin gene cannot unambiguously prove the presence (and the quantity) of epsilon toxin and prototoxin and finally those techniques are time-consuming and time to results vary from several hours to several days. Thus, there have been many reports of alternative methods using immunoassays for direct ε toxin protein detection by counterimmunoelectrophoresis [16], latex agglutination test [17] and several sandwich enzyme immunoassays using either polyclonal antibodies [1820] or monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies [16,21]. Three of these immunotechniques were compared with the mouse neutralization test [16], and results showed that there was a marked inconsistency among the four techniques to detect ε toxin in different spiked or naturally contaminated ovine intestinal contents (with presumptive or experimental enterotoxemia).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,6,12 Different techniques are routinely used to detect epsilon toxin in body fluids. 4,6,8,9,12,16 In the present study the 4 techniques tested showed marked differences in their ability to detect epsilon toxin in intestinal content and other body fluids. The PC-ELISA was the most sensitive technique regardless of fluid type.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Affinity-purified ovine antiepsilon toxin antibodies were prepared as previously described. 16 Briefly, highly purified epsilon prototoxin was converted to toxoid with formalin and used to hyperimmunize a sheep. Antibodies from the sheep serum were purified on an affinity chromatography column made by coupling purified epsilon toxin to AH Sepharose b with diethyl-3 (3-dimethyl amino propyl) carbodiimide, using the method described previously.…”
Section: Diagnostic Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations