Skin testing versus radioallergosorbent testing for indoor allergens

BACKGROUND: Skin testing (ST) is the most common screening method for allergy evaluation. Measurement of serum specific IgE is also commonly used, but less so by allergists than by other practitioners. The sensitivity and specificity of these testing methods may vary by type of causative allergen and type of allergic manifestation. We compared ST reactivity with serum specific IgE antibodies to common indoor allergens in patients with respiratory allergies. METHODS: 118 patients (3 mo-58 yr, mean 12 yr) with allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma had percutaneous skin testing (PST) supplemented by intradermal testing (ID) with those allergens suspected by history but showed negative PST. The sera were tested blindly for specific IgE antibodies by the radioallergosorbent test (Phadebas RAST). The allergens were D. farinae (118), cockroach (60), cat epithelium (90), and dog epidermal (90). Test results were scored 0-4; ST >/= 2 + and RAST >/= 1 + were considered positive. RESULTS: The two tests were in agreement (i.e., either both positive or both negative) in 52.2% (dog epidermal) to 62.2% (cat epithelium). When RAST was positive, ST was positive in 80% (dog epidermal) to 100% (cockroach mix). When ST was positive, RAST was positive in 16.3% (dog epidermal) to 50.0% (D. farinae). When RAST was negative, ST was positive in 48.5% (cat epithelium) to 69.6% (D. farinae). When ST was negative, RAST was positive in 0% (cockroach) to 5.6% (cat epithelium). The scores of ST and RAST showed weak to moderate correlation (r = 0.24 to 0.54). Regardless of history of symptoms on exposure, ST was superior to RAST in detecting sensitization to cat epithelium and dog epidermal. CONCLUSION: For all four indoor allergens tested, ST was more sensitive than RAST. When both tests were positive, their scores showed poor correlation. Sensitizations to cat epithelium and dog epidermal are common, even in subjects who claimed no direct exposure.     

Interference testing

* Interference occurs when a substance or process falsely alters an assay result. * Interferences are classified as endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous interference originates from substances present in the patient's own specimen. Exogenous interferences are substances introduced into the patient's specimen. * To perform interference studies, proper planning is required. * Interference from haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia are most frequently studied. Haemolysis affects more analytes than does any other type of interference. * Protein interferences are most often associated with paraproteins and predominantly with IgM or IgG and rarely with IgA. * Drug interference may be due to the parent drug, metabolite(s) or additives in the drug preparation. * Collection tube components can affect determination of analytes. * Carryover interference typically occurs when analyte from a high concentration sample (or reagent) is incompletely removed by the analytical system's washing process, whether probe, mixer or cuvette washing. * Immunoassay interferences are most commonly due to antibodies (generally polyclonal). They may be autoantibodies (e.g. in thyroid disease) or heterophile antibodies that predominantly interfere in two-site immunometric (sandwich) assays, forming a bridge between capture and detection antibodies. * Determining if interference is significant requires deviation limits from the original result. * Once interferences are identified during method evaluation or in general use, there is a need to establish procedures for handling affected results as part of the quality system.     

A combined testing protocol approach for mutagenicity testing.

The antischistosomal agent, hycanthone methanesulfonate (HMS), was employed to illustrate the utility of carrying out several mutagenicity tests in a single concurrent animal experiment. Several commonly used procedures that were successfully integrated into a multiple testing protocol included (1) metaphase analysis in bone marrow, (2) micronucleus test in bone marrow, (3) analysis of the urine for mutagenic constituents, and (4) the host-mediated assay using Salmonella typhimurium. In addition to these animal studies, in vitro mutagenicity testing with and without activation was carried out using S. typhimurium. HMS produced positive, dose--response effects in in vitro tests, metaphase analysis, micronucleus test, and urine analysis, but not in the host-mediated assay. The results of these integrated techniques suggest that such a protocol may be a benefit to those concerned with mutagenicity testing of chemicals.     

Biaxial testing of membrane biomaterials: testing equipment and procedures

A testing facility for measuring the biaxial mechanical properties of highly deformable membranes is described. Forces are applied, via strain-gauge force transducers, to four points on each side of an initially square 12 to 25 mm membrane sample to produce biaxial extensions of up to 80 percent of undeformed length. Strain is estimated from the displacement of markers bounding a 1 to 2 mm central square. The accuracy of stress and strain field measurements has been assessed by finite element analysis of a biaxially-loaded isotropic elastic membrane. Major advantages of the present system over those previously described in the literature are that 1) sample mounting procedures are simplified, 2) there is provision for independent adjustment of stress field uniformity and measurement of the applied point forces and 3) faster strain rates can be imposed on the relatively small samples tested.     

An innovative approach for testing bioinformatics programs using metamorphic testing

Background  

Recent advances in experimental and computational technologies have fueled the development of many sophisticated bioinformatics programs. The correctness of such programs is crucial as incorrectly computed results may lead to wrong biological conclusion or misguide downstream experimentation. Common software testing procedures involve executing the target program with a set of test inputs and then verifying the correctness of the test outputs. However, due to the complexity of many bioinformatics programs, it is often difficult to verify the correctness of the test outputs. Therefore our ability to perform systematic software testing is greatly hindered.