Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 18, 2017DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v17i3.7Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Contribution of IgG avidity and PCR for the early diagnosis of toxoplasmosis in pregnant women from the North-Eastern region of Algeria
Abstract
Background: Acute toxoplasmosis in pregnant women presents a high risk of Toxoplasma transmission to the fetus. Early diagnosis is difficult, especially when serological testing for IgG/IgM antibodies fail to differentiate between a recent and a past infection. In this case, we rely on IgG avidity or PCR assays.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare conventional ELISA and IgG avidity, with PCR using B1 and P30 primers for the early diagnosis of toxoplasmosis in pregnant women.
Methods: Sera were collected from 143 pregnant women and measured by ELISA for anti-Toxoplasma IgG, IgM, IgA and IgG avidity. DNA was extracted from 57 peripheral blood and 14 amniotic fluid samples for PCR amplification.
Results: A total of 57 out 143 women were seropositive: 30 (52.6%) were IgG+/IgM- and 27 (43.8%) were IgG+/IgM+; IgA antibodies were positive in 7 (12.2%) cases. IgG avidity was low in 9 women suggesting an acute infection; 3 women presented an intermediate avidity. PCR detected Toxoplasma DNA in 9 women presenting low avidity and was negative for the intermediate avidity cases.
Conclusion: PCR combined to avidity IgG performed better than ELISA IgG, IgM and/or IgA assays alone. PCR was useful in the case of intermediate avidity.
Keywords: Toxoplasmosis, pregnant women, serology, IgG avidity, PCR
