丙型肝炎病毒三种不同分型方法的比较

Comparative study on three different methods in typing hepatitis C virus

分别应用聚合酶链反应（ＰＣＲ）产物酶切分型法（酶切法）、型特异引物分型ＰＣＲ法及血清丙型肝炎病毒（ＨＣＶ）型特异性抗体酶联免疫测定法（ＥＩＡ），对１２０例抗－ＨＣＶ阳性患者血清进行ＨＣＶ分型检测，比较其分型结果。结果显示酶切法与ＰＣＲ法均成功地对９６例（８０％）进行分型，其中Ⅱ型８６例（８９．６％），Ⅲ型８例（８．３％），Ⅱ／Ⅲ型混合感染２例（２．１％），且两种方法的结果完全一致。ＥＩＡ法检测出型特异性抗体７８例（６５％），其中血清１型（相当于基因Ⅰ、Ⅱ型）６８例（８７．２％），血清２型（相当于基因Ⅲ、Ⅳ）６例（７．７％），血清１、２型双阳性者４例（５．１％）。对三种方法均阳性的６６例的分型结果进行比较，ＥＩＡ法与酶切法和ＰＣＲ法的符合率达９７．０％。表明三种分型方法的结果高度一致。

The sera from 120 anti-HCV-positive patients were detected by three different methods to type HCV. In method A, PCR product of 5′-NC region was cut by restriction endonuclease. In method B, PCR with HCV core region type-specific primers was used. In method C, EIA based on HCV genotype Ⅰ, Ⅱ (serotype 1) and genotype Ⅲ, Ⅳ (serotype 2) synthetic peptides was used to detect type-specific antibodies. It was showed that HCV genotypes were successfully identified in 96 (80%) patients both by method A and method B, with HCV-Ⅱ 86 (89.6%), HCV-Ⅲ 8(8.3%), HCV-Ⅱ/Ⅲ coinfection 2(2.1%). The results of these two methods were completely agreeable. HCV type-specific antibodies were detected in 78(65%) cases by method C, with serotype 1 68(87.2%), serotype 2 6(7.7%), serotype 1 plus 2 positive 4(5.1%). The comparative estimation of 66 patients who were positive for all the three methods showed a remarkable concordance (64/66, 97.0%). Our study demonstrated that the results of different HCV-typing methods mentioned above were fairly consistent and reliable. The abvantages, disadvantages and practical applicable scope of these methods were discussed in the paper.