Hello Hello Russ, I didn't see you a long time ago in the net. I hope your
book goes well
The titles of antibodies in the study of infections for Chlamydophila
pneumoniae are arbitrary. They arose of the epidemic studies carried out by
the group of Grayston in the study of the infection for Chlamydia
trachomatis, but they are not useful when they are applied in an individual
way to patient or to controls. It is not strange donors of blood with
holding of IgG bigger than 1/512. It is not also strange sick with isolation
of Cpn and total absence of antibodies. Recently I read a comment of
Hammerschlag that analyzes these ideas although I don't remember in that
Journal.
Francisco Javier Casas Ciria
Laab Microbiología
Hospital Universitario de Puerto Real
SPAIN
http://www.arconet.es/med/jcasas/microclinica/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ <tryggvi at email.msn.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
OPPhMim8$GA.233 at cpmsnbbsa07...
> In the process of studying Chlamydophila pneumoniae, I have found
> that of IgA, IgG, and IgM titres used by various researchers to determine
> the state of infection varies greatly. IgG titers ranging from 16 to 512
> have been used by various researchers.
> My guess is that different tests have different standards.The
> researchers probably decide to use higher or lower thresholds depending on
> what they are trying to learn.
> Are there any standards for interpreting Ig levels? Any tables to
> convert results obtained with test Y to the corresponding results in test
Z?
> Thanks for your attention.
>> Russ Farris
>>>>
