4.3 Article

Seroreactivity to E-coli outer membrane protein C antibodies in active inflammatory bowel disease; diagnostic value and correlation with phylogroup B2 E-coli infection

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 155-161

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2011.639080

关键词

escherichia coli; inflammatory bowel disease; Omp C; serology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Several serologic tests, including anti-outer membrane porin C antibody (Omp C), are used for screening and as marker of disease course in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Our aim was to investigate possible differences in Omp C level in patients with active and inactive IBD compared to controls. Methods. All blood samples were tested for Omp C. Disease activity was evaluated by Harvey Bradshaw Index, Simple Clinical Activity Index and Modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Results. Blood samples were collected from 113 patients and 60 controls. Patients with active IBD did not have a higher level of Omp C than patients in remission. Surprisingly, in patients with active Crohn's disease a significantly lower level of Omp C was found compared with patients with inactive Crohn's disease (p < 0.05). All other groups among patients with IBD did have a significantly higher level of Omp C, compared with controls, including patients with acute gastroenteritis (p < 0.05). Although IBD patients with phylogroup B2 E. coli cultured from their fecal samples, were more likely to have a positive Omp C test (p < 0.05), this could not explain the low Omp C level in the subgroup of patients with active Crohn's disease. Conclusions. Omp C titer was not raised in patients with active IBD compared with patients in remission. In addition, there was no difference in Omp C level in patients with active Crohn's disease compared with controls. These observations do not support the use of Omp C serology testing, either in disease activity assessment, or in screening for active Crohn's disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据