1966
DOI: 10.1038/209725a0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fluorescent Antibodies in the Fluid of the Conjunctival Sac of Trachoma Patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1967
1967
1993
1993

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar results have been obtained with C. trachornatis in the owl monkey (Aotus trivirgatus) [6]. The presence of chlamydia-specific antibody in the ocular secretions of humans with trachoma was first demonstrated by Bernkopf and colleagues [7]. Nichols and colleagues showed that tears from children with trachoma would partly neutralize homologous strains of chlamydia inoculated into the owl monkey eye [8], but since chlamydia were present in conjunctival scrapings from these children it was clear that they themselves were not protected from infection.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Similar results have been obtained with C. trachornatis in the owl monkey (Aotus trivirgatus) [6]. The presence of chlamydia-specific antibody in the ocular secretions of humans with trachoma was first demonstrated by Bernkopf and colleagues [7]. Nichols and colleagues showed that tears from children with trachoma would partly neutralize homologous strains of chlamydia inoculated into the owl monkey eye [8], but since chlamydia were present in conjunctival scrapings from these children it was clear that they themselves were not protected from infection.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Locally produced antibodies against C. trachomatis were first described by Bernkopf et al [16] in 1966 in fluid from the conjunctival sac of infected individuals. The detection of local antibodies against C. trachomatis in cervical secretions has by some investigators been claimed to be of diagnostic values and a possible indica tor of current infection [1.2], while others have found the sensitivity and predictive values of the test too low for conclusions [3][4][5].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%