Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Methodol. Nov 20, 2021; 11(6): 294-301
Published online Nov 20, 2021. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294
Published online Nov 20, 2021. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294
Table 1 Cross-reactive patterns of hantavirus immunoglobulin G antibodies by western blot
| Band intensity | PUUV | HTNV | DOBV |
| PUUV-infected patients (n = 146) | |||
| Strong positive (+++)1 | - | 0 (0%) | 8 (5.5%) |
| Positive (+, ++)2 | - | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Borderline (+/-)3 | - | 8 (5.5%) | 10 (6.8%) |
| DOBV-infected patients (n = 42) | |||
| Strong positive (+++)1 | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.7%) | - |
| Positive (+, ++)2 | 1 (2.4%) | 8 (19.0%) | - |
| Borderline (+/-)3 | 4 (9.5%) | 11 (26.2%) | - |
- Citation: Vilibic-Cavlek T, Barbic L, Stevanovic V, Savic V, Mrzljak A, Bogdanic M, Tabain I. Comparison of indirect immunofluorescence and western blot method in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections. World J Methodol 2021; 11(6): 294-301
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v11/i6/294.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294