This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cremer, N E Articles by Hagens, S J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cremer, N E Articles by Hagens, S J

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1984 September; 20(3): 468-472

Anomalous antibody responses in viral infection: specific stimulation or polyclonal activation?

ABSTRACT

Eighteen paired serum samples submitted for serodiagnosis of current infection showed anomalous antibody results by complement fixation test when tested with a battery of agents (viruses, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and chlamydia) selected for testing on the basis of the symptoms of the patient. Seventeen serum pairs showed a fourfold or greater rise in titer of antibody to two agents in the battery, and one showed only a twofold rise in titer of antibody to the identified causative agent but an eightfold rise in titer of antibody to a heterologous agent. The 18 serum pairs were tested for IgM antibody to the two involved agents to determine whether IgM antibody tests would better distinguish the probable cause of the current infection. The serum pairs were separated into three groups based on their IgM responses. Group I consisted of six serum pairs with IgM antibody to both agents, four pairs of which showed a fourfold or greater rise in titer of IgM antibody to both agents, and two of which showed a rise in titer of IgM antibody to only one of the two agents. Group II consisted of 10 serum pairs with IgM antibody to one of the two agents, 7 pairs of which showed a fourfold or greater rise in titer of IgM antibody to the agent. Group III consisted of two serum pairs with no IgM antibody to either agent. Results show that determination of presence or absence of IgM antibody per se or demonstration of a fourfold or greater rise in specific IgM antibody titer does not always help in distinguishing the causative agent in current infections.