These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of different methods for detecting human immune deficiency virus in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive hemophiliacs.
    Author: Schneweis KE, Ackermann A, Friedrich A, Kleim JP, Kornau K, Ruff R, Siefer-Wippermann B.
    Journal: J Med Virol; 1989 Oct; 29(2):94-101. PubMed ID: 2689596.
    Abstract:
    Since the detection of antibodies against the human immune deficiency virus (HIV) does not definitely prove HIV infection in hemophiliacs, virus detection was attempted by virus isolation from the peripheral blood monocytes (PBL), by demonstration of p24 antigen and decline of p24 antibody, and by detection of viral DNA by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Virus isolation was optimized by immediate coculture of PBL and by replacement of the reverse transcriptase test by the p24 antigen test, whereas the elimination of CD8+ lymphocytes proved to be unnecessary. Virus detection was dependent on the clinical stage of the illness. Virus isolation in 70 of 211 patients (33%) was more sensitive than detection of p24 antigen or decline of p24 antibody. PCR was performed in 25 patients and indicated infection in all of 15 isolation-positive cases and in 6 of 10 patients from whom virus was not isolated. Changes from negative to positive virus culture and from a weakly fusiogenic to a highly fusiogenic isolate were often accompanied by a progression of the disease. The results suggest that reactivation of HIV occurs when immune deficiency has become manifest. Apparently virus isolation detects only the virus already reactivated in vivo, whereas the PCR may also detect latent virus.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]