The Cornell veterinarian · 1983
Pitfalls in immunofluorescence testing in canine dermatology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scott D W, Walton D K, Manning T O, Lewis R M, Smith C A
Аннотация
Indirect immunofluorescence testing for pemphigus-like antibodies was performed on 100 dogs: 50 dogs with various nonpemphigus dermatologic diseases, 25 dogs with various nondermatologic diseases, and 25 normal dogs. One dog (generalized demodicosis) was positive for pemphigus-like antibodies at a titer of 1:10. It was concluded that canine pemphigus-like antibodies are a potential source of misinterpretation and misdiagnosis in indirect immunofluorescence testing. Direct immunofluorescence testing for IgG, IgA, IgM, and C3 was performed on the footpads of 11 normal dogs. Granular deposition of IgM at the basement membrane zone was demonstrated in 5 of the 11 dogs. It was concluded that direct immunofluorescence testing of canine footpads using only polyvalent immunoglobulin antisera or anti-IgM antisera may lead to misinterpretation and misdiagnosis in up to 45% of all dogs tested.