GENE ENGINEERING EB VIRUS MEMBRANE ANTIGEN IN DETECTION OF MA-IgA ANTIBODY(COMPARISON WITH VCA-IgA AND EA-IgA ANTIBODIES)

作     者：刘孟忠 李振权 皮国华 

作者机构：Tumor Hospital Cancer Centre Sun Yat-sen University of Medical Sciences Guangzhou Institute of Virology Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine Beijingith gene engineering EB virus membrane antigen as the diagnostic antigen indirect immunofluo-rescence (IF) assay was used to detect IgA antibody against EB virus membrane antigen (MA-IgA) in sera from 202 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients and 315 controls (normal and patients with other tumors). MA-IgA antibody was positive in 96.8% of the pretreatment NPC patients with a GMT of 1:36.3. MA-IgA detection by this method was more sensitive than EA-IgA detection by IE. In contrast patients with tumors other than NPC were negative for MA-IgA antibody. 9.1% of VCA-IgA positive persons were MA-IgA positive with a GMT of less than 1:5. No MA-IgA positive was found in VCA-IgA negatives. The results indicated that this method was relatively specific. In the treatment group the positive rate and GMT of MA-IgA antibody declined with increase in survival time and the decline was faster than VCA-IgA. When recurrence or distant metastasis developed similar to VCA-IgA and EA-IgA antibodies the positive rate and GMT of MA-IgA antibody increased to its pretreatment level. Therefore MA-IgA detection might be valuable in the early diagnosis and monitor of NPC. 

出 版 物：《Chinese Journal of Cancer Research》 (中国癌症研究（英文版）)

年 卷 期：1991年第3卷第2期

页      面：33-36页

核心收录：

学科分类：1002[医学-临床医学] 100214[医学-肿瘤学] 10[医学] 

主　　题：IgA COMPARISON WITH VCA-IgA AND EA-IgA ANTIBODIES GENE ENGINEERING EB VIRUS MEMBRANE ANTIGEN IN DETECTION OF MA-IgA ANTIBODY VCA MA EA 

摘      要：With gene engineering EB virus membrane antigen as the diagnostic antigen, indirect immunofluo-rescence (IF) assay was used to detect IgA antibody against EB virus membrane antigen (MA-IgA) in sera from 202 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients and 315 controls (normal and patients with other tumors). MA-IgA antibody was positive in 96.8% of the pretreatment NPC patients with a GMT of 1:36.3. MA-IgA detection by this method was more sensitive than EA-IgA detection by IE. In contrast, patients with tumors other than NPC were negative for MA-IgA antibody. 9.1% of VCA-IgA positive persons were MA-IgA positive with a GMT of less than 1:5. No MA-IgA positive was found in VCA-IgA negatives. The results indicated that this method was relatively specific. In the treatment group, the positive rate and GMT of MA-IgA antibody declined with increase in survival time and the decline was faster than VCA-IgA. When recurrence or distant metastasis developed, similar to VCA-IgA and EA-IgA antibodies, the positive rate and GMT of MA-IgA antibody increased to its pretreatment level. Therefore, MA-IgA detection might be valuable in the early diagnosis and monitor of NPC.