Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology logoLink to Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology
. 1996 Jan;3(1):42–46. doi: 10.1128/cdli.3.1.42-46.1996

A comparison of electrochemiluminescence and flow cytometry for the detection of natural latex-specific human immunoglobulin E.

L Kobrynski 1, L Tanimune 1, N A Pawlowski 1, S D Douglas 1, D E Campbell 1
PMCID: PMC170245  PMID: 8770502

Abstract

In vitro correlates of type 1 hypersensitivity to natural latex (NL) proteins continue to be limited by both sensitivity and specificity. Methods which have detection limits in the picogram range, namely, radioallergosorbent assays (RAST) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), are inadequate for the identification of NL hypersensitivity in certain at-risk groups, such as health care workers. A flow cytometry assay (FCA), previously shown to be comparable to RAST and ELISA in the identification of NL-sensitized pediatric patients with spina bifida, was compared with electrochemiluminescence (ECL) in the evaluation of pediatric patients with spina bifida and NL-sensitized adult health care workers. As with RAST and ELISA, ECL is capable of detecting picogram amounts of specific analyte. The ECL assay detected NL-specific immunoglobulin E (NL-IgE) in three of six health care workers with strong histories of NL hypersensitivity. All six patients were negative by FCA. Further, 2 of 11 spina bifida patients found to be NL-IgE negative by FCA were NL-IgE positive by ECL. These findings suggest that in sensitivity the ECL assay is an improvement over the FCA for the identification of NL-sensitive individuals.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (179.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alenius H., Palosuo T., Kelly K., Kurup V., Reunala T., Mäkinen-Kiljunen S., Turjanmaa K., Fink J. IgE reactivity to 14-kD and 27-kD natural rubber proteins in latex-allergic children with spina bifida and other congenital anomalies. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1993;102(1):61–66. doi: 10.1159/000236551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blackburn G. F., Shah H. P., Kenten J. H., Leland J., Kamin R. A., Link J., Peterman J., Powell M. J., Shah A., Talley D. B. Electrochemiluminescence detection for development of immunoassays and DNA probe assays for clinical diagnostics. Clin Chem. 1991 Sep;37(9):1534–1539. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Czuppon A. B., Chen Z., Rennert S., Engelke T., Meyer H. E., Heber M., Baur X. The rubber elongation factor of rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) is the major allergen in latex. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Nov;92(5):690–697. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(93)90012-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kelly K. J., Kurup V., Zacharisen M., Resnick A., Fink J. N. Skin and serologic testing in the diagnosis of latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Jun;91(6):1140–1145. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(93)90316-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kurup V. P., Kelly K. J., Resnick A., Bansal N. K., Fink J. N. Characterization of latex antigen and demonstration of latex-specific antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in patients with latex hypersensitivity. Allergy Proc. 1992 Nov-Dec;13(6):329–334. doi: 10.2500/108854192778816915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kurup V. P., Kelly K. J., Turjanmaa K., Alenius H., Reunala T., Palosuo T., Fink J. N. Immunoglobulin E reactivity to latex antigens in the sera of patients from Finland and the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Jun;91(6):1128–1134. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(93)90314-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kurup V. P., Kumar A., Kelly K. J., Fink J. N. Characterization of a monoclonal antibody against latex protein associated with latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Nov;92(5):638–643. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(93)90005-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kwittken P. L., Pawlowski N. A., Sweinberg S. K., Douglas S. D., Campbell D. E. Flow cytometric measurement of immunoglobulin E to natural latex proteins. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1994 Mar;1(2):197–201. doi: 10.1128/cdli.1.2.197-201.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kwittken P. L., Sweinberg S. K., Campbell D. E., Pawlowski N. A. Latex hypersensitivity in children: clinical presentation and detection of latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Pediatrics. 1995 May;95(5):693–699. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rothmann J., Hassan N. F., Campbell D. E., Kamani N., Douglas S. D. Synthetic peptide homologous to the envelope proteins of retroviruses shares a cross-reacting epitope with the CD4 receptor. J Clin Microbiol. 1990 Jan;28(1):112–115. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.1.112-115.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Slater J. E., Chhabra S. K. Latex antigens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992 Mar;89(3):673–678. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(92)90373-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Slater J. E., Trybul D. E. Affinity purification of latex antigens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994 Mar;93(3):644–649. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(94)70076-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Spaner D., Dolovich J., Tarlo S., Sussman G., Buttoo K. Hypersensitivity to natural latex. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989 Jun;83(6):1135–1137. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(89)90457-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Turjanmaa K., Laurila K., Mäkinen-Kiljunen S., Reunala T. Rubber contact urticaria. Allergenic properties of 19 brands of latex gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 1988 Nov;19(5):362–367. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1988.tb02953.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Turjanmaa K., Reunala T., Räsänen L. Comparison of diagnostic methods in latex surgical glove contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. 1988 Oct;19(4):241–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1988.tb02920.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES