This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E. L.
Right arrow Articles by Horsman, G. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E. L.
Right arrow Articles by Horsman, G. B.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, September 2001, p. 909-912, Vol. 8, No. 5
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.5.909-912.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Chemicon SimulFluor Direct Fluorescent Antibody Staining with Cell Culture and Shell Vial Direct Immunoperoxidase Staining for Detection of Herpes Simplex Virus and with Cytospin Direct Immunofluorescence Staining for Detection of Varicella-Zoster Virus

Edward L. Chan,* Ken Brandt, and Greg B. Horsman

Virology Section, Clinical Microbiology Department, Provincial Laboratory, Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6, Canada

Received 26 January 2001/Returned for modification 11 April 2001/Accepted 9 May 2001

A new rapid direct immunofluorescence assay, the SimulFluor direct fluorescent-antibody (DFA) assay, which can simultaneously detect herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and -2) and varicella-zoster virus (VZV), was evaluated in comparison with our current standard procedures of (i) shell vial direct immunoperoxidase (shell vial IP) staining and cell culture for detection of HSV and (ii) cytospin DFA staining for VZV detection. A total of 517 vesicular, oral, genital, and skin lesion specimens were tested by all three procedures. For HSV detection, the SimulFluor DFA assay had an overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 80.0, 98.3, 92.3, and 95.1%, respectively, when compared to culture. Shell vial IP staining had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 87.6, 100, 100, and 96.9%, respectively, when compared with cell culture. The SimulFluor DFA assay, however, offers same-day, 1.5-hours results versus a 1- to 2-day wait for shell vial IP staining results and a 1- to 6-day wait for culture results for HSV. For VZV detection SimulFluor DFA staining detected 27 positive specimens as compared to 31 by our standard cytospin DFA technique---a correlation of 87.1%. A positive SimulFluor reaction for VZV is indicated by yellow-gold fluorescence compared to the bright apple-green fluorescence observed by cytospin DFA staining. There is no difference in turnaround time between the two assays. The SimulFluor DFA assay is a rapid immunofluorescence assay that can detect 80% of the HSV-positive specimens and 87% of the VZV-positive specimens with a 1.5-h turnaround time.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Clinical Microbiology Dept., Provincial Laboratory, 3211 Albert St., Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6, Canada. Phone: (306) 787-3135. Fax: (306) 787-1525. E-mail: echan{at}health.gov.sk.ca.


Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, September 2001, p. 909-912, Vol. 8, No. 5
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.5.909-912.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.