02117nas a2200349 4500000000100000008004100001260001300042653001500055653001000070653000900080653002400089653003100113653003800144653001100182653001600193653001100209653002100220653002100241653001200262653000900274653001600283653002500299653001700324100002100341700001900362700001900381245016000400300001200560490000600572520117500578022001401753 1999 d c1999 Dec10aAdolescent10aAdult10aAged10aAntigens, Bacterial10aChromatography, Thin Layer10aEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay10aFemale10aGlycolipids10aHumans10aImmunoglobulin G10aImmunoglobulin M10aleprosy10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aMycobacterium leprae10aTuberculosis1 aRojas-Espinosa O1 aLuna-Herrera J1 aArce-Paredes P00aRecognition of phenolic glycolipid-I (Mycobacterium leprae) and sulfolipid-I (M. tuberculosis) by serum from Mexican patients with leprosy or tuberculosis. a1106-120 v33 a

SETTING: Differential diagnosis of leprosy and tuberculosis in regions where both illnesses are endemic is a prerequisite for proper identification and treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recognition of phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I) of Mycobacterium leprae and sulfolipid-I (SL-I) of M. tuberculosis by serum from patients with leprosy (LL) or pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB).

DESIGN: Purified PGL-I and SL-I were used as antigens in an ELISA test set up to assess recognition of these lipids by serum from 43 LL patients, 44 PTB patients and 38 healthy individuals.

RESULTS: Leprosy patients gave higher IgM than IgG responses to PGL-I and had comparable IgM and IgG responses to SL-I. A similar situation was observed with PTB serum. Some healthy individuals were found to contain significant levels of antibodies to both lipids.

CONCLUSION: There is no specific recognition of either of the two lipid antigens tested by serum from both leprosy and tuberculosis patients; this rules out the possibility of using PGL-I and SL-I as tools for the differential diagnosis of these two mycobacterial diseases.

 a1027-3719