Advertisement

Cholera pp 229-251 | Cite as

Laboratory Diagnosis

  • Sudhir Chandra Pal
Part of the Current Topics in Infectious Disease book series (CTID)

Abstract

Laboratory diagnosis of acute untreated cholera is fairly simple and straight forward as large number of cholera vibrios are present in the stools of such cases. The number of vibrios may vary from about 106 to 109 per ml of fecal material with relatively fewer organisms of the normal intestinal flora.1–3 Therefore, it may be possible for a trained laboratory worker to isolate and identify the pathogen, using inexpensive media and reagents in a minimally equipped laboratory.

Keywords

Cholera Toxin Laboratory Diagnosis Rectal Swab Cholera Vibrio Potassium Tellurite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith HL Jr, Freter R, Sweeney FJ Jr: Enumeration of cholera vibrios in faecal samples. J Infect Dis 109: 31–34, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dizon JJ, Fukumi H, Barua D, et al: Studies on cholera carriers. Bull WHO 37: 737–743, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorbach SI, Banwell JG, Jacob B, et al: Intestinal microflora in Asiatic cholera. I. Rice-water stool. J Infect Dis 121: 32–37, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venkatraman KV, Ramakrishnan CS: A preserving medium for the transmission of specimens for the isolation of Vibrio cholerae. Indian J Med Res 29: 681–684, 1941.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pal SC, Murty DK, Murti GVS, et al: Bacteriological investigations of cholera epidemics in Gurgaon district and in Delhi during 1965–66. Indian J Med Res 55: 810–814, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zafari Y, Zarifi A, Zomorodi F: A comparative study of sea water and Cary-Blair media for transportation of stool specimens. J Trop Med Hyg 71: 178–179, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cary SG, Blair EB: New transport medium for shipment of clinical specimens. 1. Faecal specimens. J Bacteriol 88: 96–98, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaines S, Haque SU, Paniom W, et al: A field trial of a new transport medium for collection of faeces for bacteriological examination. Amer J Trop Med 14: 136–140, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeWitt WE, Gangarosa EJ, Huq I, et al: Holding media for the transport of Vibrio cholerae from field to laboratory. Amer J Trop Med Hyg 20: 685–688, 1971.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pal SC, Deb BC, Sen Gupta PG, et al: A controlled field trial of an aluminum phosphate-absorbed cholera vaccine in Calcutta. Bull WHO 58: 741–745, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sen D, Saha MR, Nair GB, et al: Etiological spectrum of acute diarrhoea in hospitalized patients in Calcutta. Indian J Med Res 82: 286–291, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinha R, Deb BC, De SP, et al: Cholera carrier studies in Calcutta in 1966–67. Bull WHO 37: 89–100, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joint ICMR-GWB-WHO Cholera Study Group: Cholera carrier studies in Calcutta, 1968. Bull WHO 43: 379–387, 1970.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deb BC, Sen Gupta PG, De SP, et al: Effect of sulfadoxine on transmission of Vibrio cholerae infection among family contacts of cholera patients in Calcutta. Bull WHO 54: 171–175, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sen Gupta PG, Sircar BK, Mondai S, et al: Effect of doxycycline on transmission of Vibrio cholerae infection among family contacts of cholera patients in Calcutta. Bull WHO 56: 323–326, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monsur KA: Bacteriological diagnosis of cholera under field conditions. Bull WHO 28: 387–389, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huq MI: A simple laboratory method for the diagnosis of V. cholerae. Trans R Soc Trop MedHyg 73: 553–556, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huq MI, Sanyal SC, Samadi AR, et al: Comparative behaviour of classical and El Tor biotypes of Vibrio cholerae 01 isolated in Bangladesh during 1982. J Diar Dis Res 1: 5–9, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samadi AR, Huq MI, Shahid N, et al: Classical Vibrio cholerae biotype displaces El Tor in Bangladesh. Lancet i: 805–807, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dold H, Ketterer M: Zeitsch Hygn Infectionskr 125: 441, 1944.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bailey WR, Bynoe ET: “Filter paper” method for collecting and transporting stools to laboratory for enteric bacteriological examination? Can J Pub Hlth 44: 468, 1953.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barua D, Gomez CZ: Blotting-paper strips for transportation of cholera stools? Bull WHO 37: 798, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huq MI, Rahaman MM: Blotting paper strip for the transport of stool specimens. Indian J Med Res 78: 765–768, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bandi I: Le epidemic coleriche delle Puglie e di Napoli? Riv Crit Clin Med 11: 770, 785., 802, 1910.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cossery GN: The value of Bandi’s test in the rapid diagnosis of cholera. Unpublished working document WHO/Cholera/14, p 3, (Quoted from Pollitzer, 1959).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghosal SC, Paul BM: The value of Bandi’s test in the rapid diagnosis of cholera. Bull WHO 7: 371–373, 1952.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lam SYS: A rapid test for the identification of Vibrio cholerae in stool. J Diar Dis Res 2: 87–89, 1983.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benenson AS, Islam MR, Greenough III WB: Rapid identification of Vibrio cholerae by darkfield microscopy. Bull WHO 30: 827–831, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenough WB III, Benenson AS, Islam MR: Experience of darkfield examination of stools from diarrheal patients, in Proceedings of the Cholera Research Symposium (Jan 24–29, 1965, Honolulu). Public Health Service Publication No. 1338. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1965, pp 56-58.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Finkelstein RA, LaBrec EH: Rapid identification of cholera vibrios with fluorescent antibody. J Bacteriol 78: 886–891, 1959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finkelstein RA, Gomez CZ: Comparison of methods for the rapid recognition of cholera vibrios. Bull WHO 28: 327–332, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sack RB, Barua D: The fluorescent antibody technique in the direct examination of cholera stool, in Proceedings of the Cholera Research Symposium (Jan 24–29, 1965 Honolulu). Public Health Service Publication No. 1328, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1965, pp 50-56.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zinnaka Y, Shimodori S, Takeya K: Application of fluorescent antibody technique to the detection of cholera vibrio. Jpn J Infect Dis 39: 51–58, 1965.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lankford CE: The Henry oblique light technique as an aid in bacteriologic diagnosis of cholera. J Microbiol Soc Thailand 3: 10–12, 1959.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barua D: Laboratory diagnosis of cholera cases and carriers, in Principles and Practices of Cholera Control, Public Health Paper No. 40. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1970, pp 47-52.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jasudason MV, Thangavelu CP, Lalitha MK: Rapid screening of fecal samples for Vibrio cholerae by coagglutination technique. J Clin Microbiol 19: 712–713, 1984.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rahman M, Sack DA, Wadood A, et al: A low cost and rapid slide agglutination test for diagnosis of cholera using faecal samples. Abstract of the paper presented at the 23rd Joint Conference of Cholera. US-Japan Cooperative Medical Science Program, Virginia, Nov 10–12, 1987, p 88.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sack RB, Barua D: A comparative study of bile-salt agar and gelatin-taurocholate-tellurite agar in the bacteriologic diagnosis of cholera. Bull Calcutta Sch Trop Med 12: 56–58, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gangarosa EJ, DeWitt WE, Huq I: Laboratory methods in cholera: isolation of V. cholerae (El Tor and classical) on TCBS medium in minimally equipped laboratories. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 62: 693–699, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pal SC, Murti GVS, Pandit CG, et al: A comparative study of enrichment media in the bacteriological diagnosis of cholera. Indian J Med Res 55: 318–324, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pollitzer R: Cholera, Monograph Series No 43. Geneva, World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Felsenfeld O: A review of recent trends in cholera research and control. Bull WHO 34: 161–195, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barua D: Laboratory diagnosis of cholera, in Barua D, Burrows W, (eds): Cholera. Philadelphia, WB Sannders, 1974, pp 85–126.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lankford CE, Burrows W: Oblique light microscopy as an aid to rapid detection of enteric pathogens, in Proceedings of the Cholera Research Symposium (Jan 24–29, 1965, Honolulu). Public Health Service Publication No. 1328. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1965, pp 45-50.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kobayashi T, Enomoto S, Sakazaki R: A new selective isolation medium for the vibrio group on a modified Nakanishi’s medium (TCBS agar medium). Jpn J Bacteriol 18: 387–392, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tamura K, Shimoda S, Prescott LM: Vibrio agar: a new plating medium for isolation of V. cholerae. Jpn J Med Sci Biol 24: 125–127, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    De SP, Sen D, De PC, et al: A simple selective medium for isolation of vibrios with particular reference to V. parahaemolyticus. Indian J Med Res 66: 398–399, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Finkelstein RA, Mukherjee S: Haemagglutination: A rapid method for differentiating V. cholerae and El Tor vibrios. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 112: 355–359, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barua D, Mukherjee AC: Direct bacterial haemagglutination test for differentiating El Tor vibrios from V. cholerae. Bull Calcutta Sch Trop Med 11: 85–86, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zinnaka Y, Shimodori S, Takeya K: Haemagglutinating activity of Vibrio comma. Jpn J Microbiol 8: 97–103, 1964.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barua D, Mukherjee AC: Haemagglutinating activity of El Tor vibrios and its nature. Indian J Med Res 53: 399–404, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    De SN, Ghosh CR, Mukherjee B: Interesting variation observed in a strain of V. cholerae. J Ind Med Assn 44: 520–524, 1965.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rizvi S, Huq MI, Benenson AS: Isolation of haemagglutinating non-El Tor cholera vibrio. J Bacteriol 89: 910–912, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Neogy KN, Sanyal SN, Mukherjee MK, et al: Haemagglutinating activity of classical V. cholerae. Bull Calcutta Sch Trop Med 14: 1–3, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sehgal PN, Misra BS, Pal SC, et al: An epidemic of classical cholera in the south eastern districts of Madhya Pradesh in 1970. Indian J Med Res 60: 7–14, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gan KH, Tjia SK: A new method for the differentiation of Vibrio comma and Vibrio El Tor. Amer J Hyg 77: 184–186, 1963.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roy C, Mridha K, Mukherjee S: Action of polymyxin on cholera vibrios: techniques of determination of polymyxin-sensitivity. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 119: 893–896, 1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Barua D, Gomez CZ: Observation on some tests commonly employed for the characterization of El Tor vibrios. Bull WHO 37: 800–803, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pal SC, Gugnani HC, Misra BS, et al: Varients of Vibrio cholerae in Delhi. Indian J Med Res 61: 649–652, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gugnani HC, Pal SC: Variation in polymyxin sensitivity among colonies in primary plate cultures of Vibrio El Tor. J Med Microbiol 7: 535–536, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mukherjee S: The bacteriophage-susceptibility test in differentiating Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio El Tor. Bull WHO 28: 333–336, 1963.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nobechi K: On the methods to differentiate classical cholera and El Tor vibrios and further the latter into their subgroups, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Tropical Medicine and Malaria, 1963 Vol III Rio de Jeneiro, Grafica Olimpica Editora, 1964, pp 27-29.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rizvi S, Benenson AS: Phage resistance in Vibrio cholerae. Bull WHO 35: 675–680, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Swanson RW, Gillmore JD: Biochemical characteristics of recent cholera isolates in the Far East. Bull WHO 31: 422–425, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pollitzer R, Burrows W: Problems in immunology, in Pollitzer R (ed): Cholera, Monograph Series No 43. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1959, pp 202-372.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Goodner K, Smith Jr HL, Stempen H: Serological diagnosis of cholera. J A Einstein Med Cent 8: 143–147, 1960.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Barua D, Sack RB: Serological studies on cholera. Indian J Med Res 52: 855–864, 1964.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sakazaki R, Donovan TJ: Serology and epidemiology of Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio mimicus, in Bergan T (ed): Methods in Microbiology, Vol 16. London, Academic Press, 1984, pp 271–289.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bhattacharya FK: The agglutination reactions of cholera vibrios. Jpn J Med Sci Biol 30: 259–268, 1977.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    De SN, Lahiri-Chaudhury PK, Ghosh ML, et al: A study of the technique for demonstration of ‘O’ and ‘H’ agglutinins in the serum of cholera patients. Indian J Med Res 46: 351–358, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dey SK, Kusari J, Ghose AC: Detergent induced enhancement of antibody mediated flagellar agglutination of Vibrio cholerae. IRCS Med Sci 11: 908, 1983.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Benenson AS, Saad A, Paul M: Serological studies in cholera. l. Vibrio agglutinin response of cholera patients determined by microtechnique. Bull WHO 38: 267–276, 1968.c.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Joint ICMR-GWB-WHO Cholera study Group: Study on Vibrio cholerae infection in a small community in Calcutta. Bull WHO 43: 401–406, 1970.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Finkelstein RA: Vibriocidal antibody inhibition (VAI) analysis: A technique for the identification of the predominant vibriocidal antibodies in serum and for the detection and identification of V. cholerae antigens. J Immunol 89: 264–271, 1962.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Miles AA, Misra SS, Irwin JJ: The estimation of the bacteriocidal powers of the blood. J Hyg (Camb) 38: 732–748, 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    McIntyre OR, Feeley JC: Passive serum protection of the infant rabbit against experimental cholera. J Infect Dis 114: 468–475, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sack RB, Barua D, Saxena R: Vibriocidal and agglutinating antibody patterns in cholera patients. J Infect Dis 116: 630–640, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Majumdar AS, Ghose AC: Evaluation of the biological properties of different classes of human antibodies in relation to cholera. Infect Immun 32: 9–14, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Benenson AS, Saad A, Mosley WH: Serological studies in cholera. 2. The vibriocidal antibody response of cholera patients determined by a microtechnique. Bull WHO 38: 277–285, 1968.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Clements ML, Levine MM, Young CR, et al: Magnitude, kinetics and duration of vibriocidal antibody responses in north Americans after ingestion of Vibrio cholerae. J Infect Dis 145: 465–473, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Glass RI: Epidemiologic studies of cholera in rural Bangladesh. Ph.D. thesis, University of Goteborg, Sweden, 1984.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Snyder JD, Allegra DT, Levine MM, et al: Serologic studies of naturally acquired infection with Vibrio cholerae serogroup 01 in the United States. J Infect Dis 143: 182–187, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Feeley JC: Comparison of vibriocidal and agglutinating antibody responses in cholera patients, in Proceedings of the Cholera Research Symposium (Jan 24–29, 1965, Honolulu), Public Health Service Publication No. 1328. Washington DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp 220-222.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Engyall E, Perlmann P: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ELISA. III. Quantitation of specific antibodies by enzyme-labelled anti-immunoglobulin in antigen-coated tubes. J Immunol 109: 129–135, 1972.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Holmgren J, Svennerholm AM: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for cholera serology. Infect Immun 7: 759–763, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sears SD, Richardson K, Young CR, et al: Evaluation of the human immune response to outer membrane proteins of Vibrio cholerae. Infect Immun 44: 439–444, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Levine MM, Young CR, Hughes TP, et al: Duration of serum antitoxin response following Vibrio cholerae infection in north Americans: relevance for seroepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 114: 348–354, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Young CR, Levine MM, Craig JP, et al: Microtiter enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunoglobulin G cholera antitoxin in humans: Method and correlation with rabbit skin vascular permeability factor technique. Infect Immun 27: 492–496, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Benenson AS, Saad A, Mosley WH, et al: Serological studies in cholera. 3. Serum toxin neutralization—rise in titer in response to infection with Vibrio cholerae and the level in the “normal” population of East Pakistan. Bull WHO 38: 287–295, 1968.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pierce NF, Banwell JG, Gorbach SL, et al: Convalescent carriers of V. cholerae, detection and detailed investigation. J Infect Dis 72: 359–364, 1970.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kesai GJ, Burrow W: The titration of cholera toxin and antitoxin in the rabbit ileal loop. J Infect Dis 116: 606–614, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Craig JP, Eichner ER, Hornick RB: Cutaneous responses to cholera skin toxin in man. I. Responses in immunized American males. J Infect Dis 125: 203–215, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Rabins-Browne R, Young CR, Levine MM, et al: Mictotiter enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunoglobulin G cholera antitoxin in humans: sensitivity and specificity. Infect Immun 27: 497–500, 1980.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pal SC, Misra BS, Arora DD, et al: Studies on cholera carriers in Delhi. Indian J Med Res 61: 495–502, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Vande Linde PAM, Forbes GI: Observations on the spread of cholera in Hong Kong 1961–63. Bull WHO 32: 515–530, 1965.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Azurin JC, Kobari K, Barua D, et al: A long term carrier of cholera: Cholera Dolores. Bull WHO 37: 745–749, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gangarosa EJ, Saghari H, Emile J: Detection of Vibrio cholerae biotype El Tor by purging. Bull WHO 34: 363–369, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wallace CK, Pierce NF, Anderson PN, et al: Probable gallbladder infection in convalescent cholera infection. Lancet i: 865–868, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Deb BC, Sircar BK, Sen Gupta PG, et al: Intra-familial transmission of Vibrio cholerae in Calcutta slums. Indian J Med Res 76: 814–819, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Takeya K, Shimodori S, Gomez CZ: Kappa-type phage detection as a method for the tracing of cholera El Tor carriers. Bull WHO 37: 806–810, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Goh KT, Lam S, Kumarapathy S, et al: A common source food borne outbreak of cholera in Singapore. Int J Epidemiol 13: 210–215, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Khan M: Presence of vibrios in surface water and their relation with cholera in a community. Trop Geogr Med 36: 335–340, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Isaacson M: Practical aspects of a cholera survaillance programme. S Afr Med J 49: 1699–1702, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Barret TJ, Blake PA, Morris GK, et al: Use of Moore swabs for isolating Vibrio cholerae from sewage. J Clin Microbiol 11: 385–388, 1980.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    De SP, Banerjee M, Deb BC, et al: Distribution of vibrios in Calcutta environment with particular reference to V. parahaemolyticus. Indian J Med Res 65: 21–28, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Moore R: The detection of Paratyphoid carriers in towns by means of sewage examination? Mon Bull Min Health Pub Health Lab Serv 7: 241, 1948.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Shimada T, Sakazaki R, Fujimara S, et al: A new selective differential agar medium for isolation of Vibrio cholerae 01: PMT (Polymixin Mannose-Tellurite Agar). Jap J Med Sci Biol 43: 37–41, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Oku T, Uesaka Y, Hirayama T, et al: Development of a highly sensitive Bead ELISA to detect bacterial protein toxins. Microbiol Immunol 32(8):807–816, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Ramamurthy T, Pal Amit, Nair GB, et al: Experience with a toxin bead-ELISA in cholera outbreak. Lancet ii(336):375–376, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Almeida RJ, Hickmann Branner FW, Sowers EG, et al: Comparison of latex agglutination assay and an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for detecting cholera toxin. J Clin Microbiol 28(1): 128–131, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudhir Chandra Pal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations