1994American Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneRequires access

Short Report: Detection of Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar Directly in Stool

Rashidul Haque, Laurie M. Neville, Sheila Wood, William A. Petri

Open publisher page 38 citations

Abstract

Current diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica infection requires the direct microscopic identification of the parasite, a technique that is insensitive and cannot distinguish pathogenic E. histolytica from noninvasive E. dispar. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) antigen detection tests were developed to distinguish E. histolytica from E. dispar infection in stool specimens. The ELISA result for E. histolytica antigen was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stool specimens, three of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools with other or no intestinal parasites, giving a specificity and sensitivity for the detection of E. histolytica infection of 93% and 96%, respectively. The assay result used to detect both E. dispar and E. histolytica was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stools, 19 of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools negative by microscopy and culture for Entamoeba, giving a specificity and sensitivity of 97% and 87%, respectively. Because these ELISAs can be completed in several hours, they offer promise as rapid and sensitive means of detecting amebic infection.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Current diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica infection requires the direct microscopic identification of the parasite, a technique that is insensitive and cannot distinguish pathogenic E. histolytica from noninvasive E. dispar. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) antigen detection tests were developed to distinguish E. histolytica from E. dispar infection in stool specimens. The ELISA result for E. histolytica antigen was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stool specimens, three of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools with other or no intestinal parasites, giving a specificity and sensitivity for the detection of E. histolytica infection of 93% and 96%, respectively. The assay result used to detect both E. dispar and E. histolytica was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stools, 19 of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools negative by microscopy and culture for Entamoeba, giving a specificity and sensitivity of 97% and 87%, respectively. Because these ELISAs can be completed in several hours, they offer promise as rapid and sensitive means of detecting amebic infection.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 38 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Current diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica infection requires the direct microscopic identification of the parasite, a technique that is insensitive and cannot distinguish pathogenic E. histolytica from noninvasive E. dispar. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) antigen detection tests were developed to distinguish E. histolytica from E. dispar infection in stool specimens. The ELISA result for E. histolytica antigen was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stool specimens, three of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools with other or no intestinal parasites, giving a specificity and sensitivity for the detection of E. histolytica infection of 93% and 96%, respectively. The assay result used to detect both E. dispar and E. histolytica was positive in 26 of 27 E. histolytica-positive stools, 19 of 25 E. dispar-positive stools, and one of 30 stools negative by microscopy and culture for Entamoeba, giving a specificity and sensitivity of 97% and 87%, respectively. Because these ELISAs can be completed in several hours, they offer promise as rapid and sensitive means of detecting amebic infection.

Key concepts: Dispar, Entamoeba histolytica, Biology, Microbiology, Parasite hosting, Feces, Antigen, Amoebiasis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Short Report: Detection of Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar Directly in Stool — Research Paper | ScholarLens