The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of conventional staining methods and monoclonal antibody-based methods for Cryptosporidium oocyst detection
Open accessAbstract
The sensitivity and specificity of seven microscopy-based Cryptosporidium oocyst detection methods were compared after application to unconcentrated fecal smears. The seven methods were as follows: (i) a commercial acid-fast (AF) stain (VOLU-SOL) method, (ii) Truant auramine-rhodamine (AR) stain method, (iii) fluorescein-conjugated C1B3 monoclonal antibody (MAb) direct fluorescence method, (iv) OW3 MAb indirect fluorescence method, (v) biotinylated OW3 indirect fluorescence method, (vi) biotinylated OW3-indirect diaminobenzidine (DAB) method, and (vii) biotinylated OW3-aminoethylcarbazole (AEC) method. A total of 281 randomly collected Formalin-fixed fecal samples (submitted to the Maricopa County Health Department, Phoenix, Ariz.) and 30 known positives (Formalin-fixed and K2Cr2O7-preserved stools from our laboratory) were examined in a blind test; 32 of 311 samples (10.3%) were confirmed positive. Of the confirmed positives, 40.6% were identified by the AF method, 93.8% were identified by the AR method, 93.8% were identified by the C1B3 method, 81.3% were identified by the OW3-DAB method, 71.9% were identified by the OW3-AEC method, 100% were identified by the OW3 indirect fluorescence method, and 100% were identified by the biotinylated OW3 indirect fluorescence method. False-positives were encountered by the AF and AR methods (52.0 and 85.7% specificity, respectively), while no false-positives encountered by the MAb-based methods. Oocysts in infected tissue sections were easily detected by the MAb-based methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Epidemiology of Cryptosporidium: transmission, detection and identification
Fayer, R., Morgan, U., & Upton, S. J. (2000) · International Journal for Parasitology · doi:10.1016/s0020-7519(00)00135-1 · Cited by 938
Rasmussen, K. R., Arrowood, M. J., & Healey, M. C. (1992) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.36.1.220 · Cited by 33
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Arrowood, M. J., & Sterling, C. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1989-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1490-1495
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2118812707
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of conventional staining methods and monoclonal antibody-based methods for Cryptosporidium oocyst detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.27.7.1490-1495.1989
- The paper
- Arrowood, M. J., & Sterling, C. R. (1989). Comparison of conventional staining methods and monoclonal antibody-based methods for Cryptosporidium oocyst detection. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.27.7.1490-1495.1989
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.