The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of different immunostaining techniques and monoclonal antibodies to the lower matrix phosphoprotein (pp65) for optimal quantitation of human cytomegalovirus antigenemia
Open accessAbstract
The main parameters of immunostaining techniques, i.e., the type of fixative, immunocytochemical reaction, and quality of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), for quantitation of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) antigenemia in peripheral blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes (currently performed by the indirect immunofluorescence or immunoperoxidase reaction by using MAbs to HCMV pp65) were investigated in order to optimize procedural steps and reagents. Significantly better results (in terms of the number of positive cells) were obtained on multiple cytospin preparations from heart transplant recipients with HCMV viremia when we used (i) formalin instead of methanol-acetone fixation and (ii) the indirect immunofluorescence reaction instead of the immunoperoxidase reaction, the avidin-biotin complex method, or the alkaline phosphatase antialkaline phosphatase procedure. In addition, comparison of the staining capabilities of three MAbs to pp65, which were developed in the laboratory and which were reactive to different epitopes of the protein, with a commercially available MAb (Clonab CMV) for determination of HCMV antigenemia showed that, while individual MAbs did not provide better results, the pool of MAbs detected a significantly higher number of positive peripheral blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes than Clonab CMV did. In addition, the sensitivity of the pool in detecting patients with low levels of viremia (less than 5/2 x 10(5) cells inoculated) as antigenemia positive was 100%, whereas the sensitivity of Clonab CMV was 47%. No differences in the specificities between the two MAb preparations were observed.
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
A Randomized Trial of Hyperimmune Globulin to Prevent Congenital Cytomegalovirus
Revello, M. G., Lazzarotto, T., Guerra, B., Spinillo, A., Ferrazzi, E., Kustermann, A., Guaschino, S., Vergani, P., Todros, T., Frusca, T., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1310214 · Cited by 489
Self-citationQuantitation of Cytomegalovirus: Methodologic Aspects and Clinical Applications
Boeckh, M., & Boivin, G. (1998) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.11.3.533 · Cited by 438
Landolfo, S., Gariglio, M., Gribaudo, G., & Lembo, D. (2003) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0163-7258(03)00034-2 · Cited by 358
Applications of flow cytometry to clinical microbiology
Álvarez-Barrientos, A., Arroyo, J., Cantón, R., Nombela, C., & Sánchez-Pérez, M. (2000) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.13.2.167 · Cited by 300
Gerna, G., Percivalle, E., Baldanti, F., Sozzani, S., Lanzarini, P., Genini, E., Lilleri, D., & Revello, M. G. (2000) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.74.12.5629-5638.2000 · Cited by 171
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerna, G., Revello, M. G., Percivalle, E., & Morini, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1992-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1232-1237
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1948248797
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 different immunostaining techniques and monoclonal antibodies to the lower matrix phosphoprotein (pp65) for optimal quantitation of human cytomegalovirus antigenemia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.30.5.1232-1237.1992
- The paper
- Gerna, G., Revello, M. G., Percivalle, E., & Morini, F. (1992). Comparison of different immunostaining techniques and monoclonal antibodies to the lower matrix phosphoprotein (pp65) for optimal quantitation of human cytomegalovirus antigenemia. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.30.5.1232-1237.1992
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.