ImmunoSciences Lab results

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by swedeboy, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    The day the blood was drawn I was having one of those very rare, exceptionally " Relatively Good Days."

    My Blood was Drawn on 1/9/2007.

    I had The CFIDS Panel 1 and 2, and The Molecular Biology of CFIDS Panel test performed, $1100, and here are the results.

    Total WBC = 3900 Normal range: 4800-10800 mm3

    Total Lymphocyte = 1716 Normal Range 960-4320 mm3

    %Lymphocyte = 44.0 Normal range 20-40% percent

    Total T-Cell = 1218 Normal range 586-3672 mm3

    % T Cell (T11, CD2) = 71.0 Normal range 61-85% percent

    Total T Helper Cell (T4) = 686 Normal range 336-2376 mm3

    % T Helper Cell (T4) = 40 Normal range 35-55% percent

    Total Suppressor Cell = 480 Normal range 192-1598 mm3

    % Supppressor Cell (T8) = 28 Normal range 20-37% percent

    T-Helper/T-Supressor = 1.4 Normal range 1-2.5 Ratio

    Total B Cell = 137 Normal range 48- 648 mm3

    % B-Cell (B1, CD20) = 8 Normal range 5-15% percent

    Total Natural Killer = 377 Normal range 52-864 mm3

    % Natural Killer Cells = 22 Normal range 5.5-20% percent

    Total NKHT3 Positive = 34 Normal range 14-216 mm3

    NKHT3 Positive = 2 Normal range 1.5-5% percent

    Total NKHT3 Negative = 343 Normal range 38-648 mm3

    % NKHT3 Negative = 20 Normal range 4-15% percent

    Total CD3+ CD26+ = 532 Normal range 10-1944 mm3

    % CD3+ CD26+ (TA1) = 31 Normal range 1-45% percent

    Total T3 (CD3) Positive C 1235 Normal range 509-3413 mm3

    % T3 Positive Cells = 72 Normal range 53-79% percent

    Anti-Nuclear AB By Hep-2 = 1:20 "Titers up to 1:20 indicate
    a weakly positive test."

    IgG Candida = 926 Normal range 0-2475 Elisa

    IgM Candida = <400 Normal range 0-2248 Elisa

    IgA Candida = <400 Normal range 0-1426 Elisa

    IgG Cytomegalovirus <8.00 Normal range <8.00 EU/ml
    (I assume mine is less than
    (8.00, this is exactly how
    (the results appear on the
    (print-out, maybe for some
    (test results they don't
    give an exact number)

    IgM Cytomegalovirus <0.90 Normal range <0.90 Index

    IgG Epstein-Barr Virus VCA = 2.40 Normal Range <0.90 Index

    IgM Epstein-Barr VCA = <0.90 Normal range <0.90 Index

    IgG EA = <0.90 Normal range <0.90 Index

    IgG EBNA = 6.08 Normal range <0.90 Index

    IgM EBNA = <0.90 Normal Range <0.90 Index

    IgG HHV-6 (Herpes Type-6) = 5 Normal range 0-76 Elisa

    Igm HHV-6 (Herpes Type-6) = 15 Normal range 0-57 Elisa

    Total Immune Complex = <4.4 Normal range <4.4 ug Eq/ml

    Activated T-Helper Cells = 25.5 Normal range 23-45 %

    Activ. T-Supressor Cells = 11.7 Normal range 9-21 %

    Activated B-Cells = 4.0 Normal range 1.5 - 6.5 %

    Natural Killer Cell Activity = 27 Normal range >19 LUs

    *(NK Cell Activity in 2005 was 11.40 LUs)

    NK Cell Activity/Cell = 7.00 Normal range 5.1-10 LUs

    %Natural Killer Cells = 22.0 Normal range 5.5-20% percent

    % T3 Positive Cells = 72.0 Normal range 53-79% percent

    Rheumatoid Factor = <16.0 Normal range <16.0 IU/ml

    Secretory IgA = 108.0 Normal range 10-40 Ug/ml

    Rnase-L Activity = 20 Normal range 10-27 Active-U

    Apoptosis = 7.90 Normal range 0-5% Percent

    Interferon Alpha Level = <12.5 Normal range <12.5 ng/ml

    *******Summary Results********

    Results Were Verified By Repeated Testing

    The Following Abnormalities Were Detected:

    Total WBC = 3900 Normal range: 4800-10800 mm3

    %Lymphocyte = 44.0 Normal range 20-40% percent

    % Natural Killer Cells = 22 Normal range 5.5-20% percent

    % NKHT3 Negative = 20 Normal range 4-15% percent

    IgG Epstein-Barr Virus VCA = 240 Normal Range <0.90 Index

    IgG EBNA = 6.08 Normal range <0.90 Index

    Secretory IgA = 108.0 Normal range 10-40 Ug/ml

    Apoptosis = 7.90 Normal range 0-5% Percent

    Any analysis and or suggestions/explainations are overly welcomed. My General Practioner just scratches her head at these. I have an appointment next week with Dr. Monotoya of Stanford. Hopefully he'll be able to explain some of these abnormal results for me.

    Thanks Ya'll, Peace and Love, Swedeboy

    [This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  2. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member


    I hope I don't have to have all of them re-done in a month, especially at $1100.

    Hopefully I can just have specific ones re-done.

    I have had some of these tests done multiple times before, such as EBV panel, and WBC count. The EBV is has always been relatively the same, and the WBC have always been slightly abnormally low. Been tested for routine things such as WBC and EBV every six months since 1999.
    [This Message was Edited on 01/31/2007]
  3. AllWXRider

    AllWXRider New Member

    Sounds like your about normal. Anymore complaints of fatigue means you're faking it....JK Swedeboy.

    Did you ever get a hair analysis?
  4. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Very Funny, :)

    I sent my hair sample last week, to the lab that Dr. Cutler suggests.

    According to these Immunosciences lab results and Dr. De Meileir what CFS category am I in, 1,2, or 3? Anyone know?

  5. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    What about these:

    Secretory IgA = 108.0 Normal range 10-40 Ug/ml

    Apoptosis = 7.90 Normal range 0-5% Percent

    Especially the Secretory IgA, what does this mean?

    Immunosciences says this:
    "High levels of Secretory IgA is associated with chronic viral syndromes, parotits, and may be indicative of mucosal surfaces infection with EBV, CMV, Herpes, HIV, Streptococcus, Bacteroids and Candida albicans."

    "Apoptosis is the best cellular marker of oxidative stress."
  6. Lichu3

    Lichu3 New Member

    Since a revolutionary part of Dr. Montoya's work involves using high IgG levels as a marker of current infection (rather than just past infection), I wonder if your IgG levels would indicate anything at all regarding current infection with EBV.

    The HHV-6 press release states that responders had a high IgG to EBNA and to VCA (which you have) in addition to high HHV-6 IgG. However the EA IgG (which indicates active replication of EBV) is not elevated.

    I wonder if he'll recommend a trial of antiviral. Anyhow, even if he doesn't, I figure if enough of us who are close by see him, perhaps we'll be able to give him more ideas to work with.
  7. u34rb

    u34rb New Member


    If these were my results I would conclude that I had an active and acute infection with EBV. Especially the result;

    "IgG Epstein-Barr Virus VCA = 240 Normal Range <0.90 Index"

    I would have thought that this value is supported by the other IgG results which are also high.

    The value;

    "Apoptosis = 7.90 Normal range 0-5% Percent"

    suggests that your immune system is trying its best to kill off the EBV, but still needs some help.

    As far as any retesting is concerned, perhaps you will only need to retest for EBV values, and this would be a lot cheaper than $1100. A PCR test done locally could be good value.
  8. shar6710

    shar6710 New Member

    I thought the same thing: EBV infection.

    Good luck,

    [This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  9. winsomme

    winsomme New Member


    i still think it might be worth having him run the HHV-6 at whatever lab he uses just as confirmation.

    still, he may use the Valcyte for your elevated EBV levels.

  10. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Thanks for the input!

    I am a little confused because my General Practioner Doctor seems to think that my "IgG Epstein-Barr Virus VCA = 240 Normal Range <0.90 Index" seems to be evidence of a past infection. Ins't IgM for a current infection?

    Lichu3 wrote:
    "Since a revolutionary part of Dr. Montoya's work involves using high IgG levels as a marker of current infection (rather than just past infection), I wonder if your IgG levels would indicate anything at all regarding current infection with EBV."

    Plus what about this:
    Secretory IgA = 108.0 Normal range 10-40 Ug/ml

    Anyone know what Secretory IgA is and what it means in regards to CFS?

    Immunosciences says this:
    "High levels of Secretory IgA is associated with chronic viral syndromes, parotits, and may be indicative of mucosal surfaces infection with EBV, CMV, Herpes, HIV, Streptococcus, Bacteroids and Candida albicans."[This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  11. cherylsue

    cherylsue Member

    Probably an active case. I think it is a good idea to get tested for heavy metals. One thing that came out of the Florida CFS conference was the idea of heavy metals and viruses=CFS.

    I would also take quality tumeric pills 3 x daily. That has been suggested on this board for EBV. I just started them. Also, Proboost 3xdaily lowers EBV titers after a few months.

    If you have mostly cognitive problems with no pain, you are in Dr. De Meirlier's group profile 1. Many organisms, viruses, and heavy metals, and pesticides are involved.

    You are on the right track, Swedeboy.

    Good luck.

    [This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  12. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    "Secretory IgA
    "I looked it up and it can be elevated in all types of disorders from urinary tract infections to liver and kidney disease. "

    Much appreciated! I wonder what specific disorder (CFS?) is elevating my Secretory IgA?

    Thanks, yeah I do have a lot of cognitive problems, but I also have occurences of overwhelming intractable muscle/joint pain.
    Turmeric and ProBoost sound great! I am awaiting my hair analysis test and I just had all of my amalgam fillings replaced.[This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  13. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Does anyone know what this means:

    Anti-Nuclear AB By Hep-2 = 1:20

    "Titers up to 1:20 indicate a weakly positive test."

    Mine is 1:20, but I forget what Anti-Nuclear AB is.

  14. springrose22

    springrose22 New Member

    Well, it looks like you're heading in the right direction with this testing. Does sound like possibly EBV. I think ANA is a test for lupus. What needs to happen now, is that someone will interpret these results, and perhaps go further with some of the testing, and on to some treatment. It takes a Dr. who is used to digging for answers, not one who says the results are not that unusual.

    And, don't forget testing for metals, especially mercury. Thanks for posting. Lots of information. Wishing you health. Marie
  15. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Hey I hope you guys don't mind but I copied your Lab results from another post. Yeah your Rnase-L is way higher than mine! Mcourtney, It looks like I didn't have the other four tests you had. hmmmm..I wonder if I should get those too huh?


    RNASE L Activity(RNAA) 438

    RNASE L protein(RNAP) 23.3

    Elastase(ELAS) 2798

    Nitric Oxide(NOAS) <1.0

    PKR Activity 0.16

    Test Results:

    1) Rnase-L activity is high. It is killing more cells than a normal person's would.

    My value is 40. The reference range is 1-10.

    2) Apoptosis is high. More cells are dying off than in a normal person's body.

    My value is 10.70%. Normal is 0-5%.

    3) Intereferon Alpha-Serum is high

    The only test of mine that relates to yours Lisa is the Apoptosis level, mine is: Apoptosis = 7.90 Normal range 0-5%

    Although it doesn't show my exact level of Intereferon Alpha-Serum, it just says it is <12.5. So it could be like 12.49

    Thanks, Swedeboy
    [This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  16. dononagin

    dononagin New Member

    I was just reading your profile.. This bites huh.. your too young to be feeling like this! Heck.. we all are.

    Sounds to me, with my uneducated internet trained mind, that you are a victim of Epstein Barr just like so many of us.

    The ANA is a lupus test but can also indicate other auto-immune disease such as mixed connective tissue disorder, sjorgens and others. Some people have a low positive who are normal. Some people who do have lupus etc. test negative. By itself I wouldn't worry too much unless the count was higher.. But truly... I'm no doctor..and no one here is so don't worry too much till you get answers from the Doc.

    I see you are from Saratoga! What a beautiful community! I grew up in Santa Cruz.. Even attended Campbell high my Freshman year. Gosh I miss it over there so much! Now I'm stuck in the central valley... yuck!

    Stanford is an amazing hospital. How cool is it that you are getting sent to the best for your results! My little grandbaby is seen there quite regularly and I just can't say enough good about the place. I truly believe if you have something to diagnose, they will find it! Many of us go our whole lives without ever getting the opportunity to have that source of professionalism. My fingers are crossed for you that they will be able to help you.

    I'll be really curious how the doc analyzes your tests compared to our online buddies!

    Anyways, nice to meet ya Swedeboy and I'll look forward to getting to know you.

  17. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Hi Carla, thanks for the input.
    I am wondering what you mean when you say:

    "I'd still suggest finding out the liver/NO/ammonia relation..."

    Santa Cruz is Great, every chance I get I go over there.
    Yeah I love Saratoga, it still has that small town charm.

    Peace and Love, Sean

    [This Message was Edited on 02/01/2007]
  18. Slayadragon

    Slayadragon New Member

    While it is possible that the ImmunoSciences tests that swedeboy had done are not useful, it also is possible that they provide valuable information.

    Asking experts like Dr. Montoya what they think of them seems to be a good strategy with regard to trying to determine which of these two possibilities holds more truth.

    Tossing them in a file cabinet or the trash can and then forgetting about them does not seem to be a good strategy.

    Best, Lisa

    [This Message was Edited on 02/02/2007]
  19. swedeboy

    swedeboy Member

    Yeah I second that, about the hospital labs!

    By the way do you know anything about Secretory IgA:

    Secretory IgA = 108.0 Normal range 10-40 Ug/ml

  20. Slayadragon

    Slayadragon New Member

    I have been puzzling over your lab results and staring at your bio for the last couple of days, but didn't want to make any comment until I thought I had something useful to say.

    The thought that repeatedly kept coming to my mind was parasites, due to a) the fact that your illness followed an "adventure" trip and b) the apparent lack of the sort of viral activity markers that my own test demonstrated.

    Of course, it is still unknown whether your illness stems from some kind of virus even though it's not immediately evident on the test. I would imagine that false negatives on the test (e.g. that it wouldn't measure a problem that exists) are a lot more common than false positives (e.g. that it would say there was an extremely serious problem--as mine did--without there being anything at all going on).

    Parasites were still just a vague hunch until you asked specifically about the Secretory IgA, though. I then did a fast google search of just "secretory IgA" and "parasites", and a whole mass of stuff came up!

    I've yet to read it because I'm not in the greatest of shape at the moment. I'm including an article from ImmunoSciences.....not because it's the only article (by any means) or because they are more credible than other sources, but because it was one of the first on the list and is related to the specific test you had done.

    I also will add that I tend to think that (especially here in America) we tend to vastly underestimate the damage that parasites can do to us without our knowing about it.

    Remember that malaria is caused by a parasite, for example. Not many scarier diseases than that.

    Parasites also can cause all kinds of _weird_ symptoms, including cognitive/emotional ones. Look on wikipedia at toxoplasmosis, for instance. (I'm not saying this is what you have, just that parasites can manifest themselves in ways in which you would never expect. I also think it's interesting that although the article implies that toxo is not a problem, it goes on to state that Martina Navratolova was affected enough by it that she had to withdraw from tournament tennis for a while. Even common parasites can have big effects on some people, apparently.)

    And, of course, quite large numbers of parasites of different kinds exist. The idea that after your travels you might have one that is not commonly known would not seem to me surprising at all.

    I also would imagine that, like most diseases, parasites are more likely to get hold of some people under some circumstances than others. Just because locals believed that water was safe does not mean it was safe for you. (Think of Americans who go to Mexico and then spend their whole vacation in the bathroom.) Depending on the ebbs and flows of your immune system etc., it's possible that you might have picked up something that your fellow travelers were able to avoid too.

    I think it also is conceivable that your immune system might have been expending a tremendous amount of effort without your knowing it for a while after you got the hypothesized parasite. If so, then your taxing your whole system with "extreme sports" could have pulled away the reserve and allowed the pathogen to get a stronger foothold.

    (And, as I'm increasingly starting to realize, once any kind of pathogen gets a foothold in your body, you're totally sunk until somehow you get rid of it. If that's what I'm now doing, it's a whole lot harder than it would have been just to take it easy and not let the damned thing get in to begin with.)

    I have _no_ idea whether this hypothesis has any validity whatsoever. It's strictly a hunch on my part along with a total of about five minutes of google search.

    Still, I'd imagine all possibilities are worth considering for you at this point.

    i don't know how much you'll come up with about this on your own. (I'll try to fish about a bit more myself if I get my mind back at some point.)

    Unless you can rule it out as a hypothesis though, I think it's good that you've had the test done now so that you can talk about it as a conceivable cause with Montoya. I don't think he's the sort to dismiss any possibility whatsoever out-of-hand. And if he thinks there could be something to it and isn't an expert in parasites himself, I'm sure he perhaps would be better than anyone else to make sure you get directed to the right person who could either rule it out or help you with it.

    Again, I'm just stabbing in the dark. I'll keep trying to come up with other ideas too, as well as looking further into this one.

    Let me know what you find out yourself.....

    Best, Lisa


    The importance of secretory IgA in the diagnosis of and protection against parasitic infections.

    The systemic and mucosal humoral immune response is of great importance in the elimination and prevention of G. lamblia infections. Patients with a defect in the humoral immune system tend to suffer from severe and prolonged parasitic infections. In mice, the appearance of IgA in intestinal secretions has been shown to have a correlation with the infection’s resolution. Since 1985, many articles published in the leading scientific journals have dealt with the prevalence of serum and milk antibodies in different populations. To present an example, Miotti et al, in their article published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases (15: 1025, 1985), utilized an enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay system to compare prevalence and levels of systemic and local antibodies to Giardia lamblia in different populations. Serial blood and milk samples were simultaneously collected from lactating women in Texas and Mexico. IgG antibody to G. lamblia was present in 118 (77%) out of153 sera from 27 Mexican mothers but in only 51 (24%) out of 214 sera obtained from 28Texan mothers (P < .001). Sera positive for IgG antibody to G. lamblia revealed antibody levels that were significantly higher in Mexico than in Texas (0.325 + 0.076 versus 0.219 + 0.079optical density units). Secretory IgA antibody to G. lamblia was found in 121 (79%) of 153milk samples in the Mexican population, but only in 33 (15%) of 214 milk samples in the Texan population (P < .001). The levels of secretory antibody to G. lamblia were also higher in the Mexican population. The study documents a widely different antibody response to G. lamblia in individuals living in different areas. Since antibodies to G. lamblia can be acquired by infants transplacentally or through breast-feeding, this difference might be important in the relative protection against giardial infection. Thus, although G. lamblia has not often been considered an invasive organism, its antigen components apparently reach the gut-associated lymphocytes first and then go on to the systemic circulation in amounts sufficient enough to trigger a detectable mucosal and humoral immune response. The finding of a higher prevalence and higher levels of antibody to G. lamblia in women residing in Mexico City is consistent with a higher rate of exposure to this parasite in this particular population. Preliminary studies of serum and milk in populations that have a high incidence of infection in rural Bangladesh also indicate a higher rate of antibodies to G. lamblia in serum and milk than that found in populations located in areas of lower incidence.

    In another article published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases (155: 724, 1987), Nayak et al studied G. lamblia-infected and –uninfected mothers to determine the role of such IgA in providing protection against Giardia infection to their children. Titers of specific secretory IgA found in the milk of infected mothers were significantly higher than those of uninfected mothers (P < .01). Only 16% of the infants whose mothers exhibited high titers of antibodies (higher OD) in their milk were infected with Giardia. In contrast, there was an infection rate of 63% in infants whose mothers had low titers of antibodies in their milk (lower OD; P < .01). This study lends credence to the importance of IgA antibodies found in secretions in our ongoing quest for protection against the acquisition of infections. It also highlights the fact that protection comes, not only from breast- feeding, but also from the feeding of milk containing specific Secretory IgA. Studies conducted on experimental animals have also revealed the protective role that immune milk plays in the case of breast-fed offspring.

    Therefore, the low incidence of G. lamblia in the infants of mothers with high titers of SigA might be due to the protection accorded by these specific antibodies in breast milk. Furthermore, Walterspiel et al (Pediatrics 93: 28, 1994) showed that secretory antigiardia antibodies inhuman milk had the ability to protect children against most symptoms associated with diarrhea. This protective effect of human milk antibodies against enter pathogen-specific disease has been described for C. jejuni, Vibriocholerae, Shigella and for bovine milk immunoglobulin concentrate against enterotoxigenic E. coli and rotavirus. The finding of a significant association between antigiardia secretory IgA in human milk and prevention of diarrhea due to Giardia adds to the evidence of a protective role of specific SigA against giardiasis and further strengthens the importance of breast-feeding infants to prevent diarrheal disease.

    Hashke et al (Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases 13: 953, 1994) examined salivary IgA antibodies to G. lamblia in day care center children. Among 73 infants and children in a day care center, 9 a symptomatic subjects had stools positive for G. lamblia. Salivary antigiardia IgA concentrations, expressed as OD units, were higher in the 2- to 4-year-oldgroup: 0.899 + 0.03 versus 0.660 + 0.03 in the<2-year-old group (P < 0.001). In both groups values were higher in the infected children (1.099 + 0.04 versus 0.629 + 0.09 in the <2-year-old group and 1.053 + 0.07 versus 0.859 + 0.03 in the 2- to 4-year-old group). In children infected throughout the study period, salivary antigiardia antibodies remained consistently high and in 2 children whose stools were initially negative, a significant rise in OD value was observed after the stools tested positive. It was concluded that the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of specific salivary antibodies to G. lamblia can be used in the study of the mucosal immune response to the parasite, and may serve as a screening tool in monitoring the exposure of various populations to G. lamblia. This study showed that G. lamblia salivary assay may be reliable and useful in ruling out infestation. This test can thus serve a purpose in the screening of various populations of infants and children for previous exposure to G. lamblia and o the intestinal parasites.

    Rosales-Borjas (The Journal of Infection and Immunity 66: 756, 1998) measured the secretory immune response to membrane antigens during G. lamblia infection in humans. Saliva samples from giardiasis patients showed a heterogenous response against the membrane fraction when they were assayed by immunoblotting. Among the antigens recognized by patient saliva samples, those of170, 105, 92, 66, 32, 29, and 14 kDa stood out. These antigens were not recognized by saliva samples from healthy individuals. These results have a significant implication for the development of a specific saliva immunoassay for the differentiation of healthy individuals from patients infected with parasites.

    In addition to the diagnostic and protective role of secretory IgA, Mac and McLeod (J. Clin. Invest. 90: 2585, 1992) clearly demonstrated that whey secretory immunoglobulin-A to human Toxoplasma gondii was capable of reducing the infection of the enterocytes by the parasite. Whey from 17women (four acutely infected with Toxoplasma gondii, eight chronically infected, and five uninfected) was studied. T. gondii-specific secretory IgA antibodies were demonstrated by ELISA in whey from acutely infected and one of eight chronically infected women. All other samples from non-infected women were negative.

    Incubation of T. gondii tachyzoites with whey or purified secretory IgA from acutely infected (but not seronegative) women caused a 50-75%reduction in infection of enterocytes in vitro. Whey reactive with the 46-kD epitope from three of six chronically infected women caused less (> 4o%) inhibition. Whey and purified secretory IgA from two of three acutely infected women agglutinated tachyzoites. These results indicate that it may be possible to produce human secretory IgA to T. gondii capable of reducing initial infection of enterocytes, as such IgA is present during natural infection. Moreover, this study also demonstrated that T. gondii-infected humans produce secretory IgA specific to T. gondii, which has a diagnostic implication.


    Overall, the secretory immune response demonstrated in saliva has been used to reflect the result of antigenic exposure in the gut, which includes intestinal parasites. Furthermore, studies have established that secretory IgA production at one location can be stimulated in response to infection at another mucosal site. Indeed, salivary IgA was found to be the most accurate predictor of a duodenal IgA response during the first four weeks after onset of rotavirus infection.

    Since the measurement of salivary antibodies may represent mucosal immunity, and the testis simple to perform and is noninvasive, we developed ELISA tests for determining salivary anti-parasite IgA antibodies and their target receptors or antigens. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    Entamoeba histolytica
    Giardia lamblia
    Toxoplasma gondii
    Blastocystis hominis
    Cryptosporidium parvum
    Trichomonas vaginalis
    Taenia pisiformis
    Trichuris trichiura
    Lectin Adherence Receptor
    Colonic Epithelial Cells
    Successful induction of secretory antibodies is dependent on a number of variables, including the nature of the antigen, duration of antigenic challenge, and prior immune status. Local or central challenge of secretory tissues may also have an effect on the systemic immune system. The sequence of events characteristic of mucosal immune reaction following epithelial tissue (gut, oral, nasal, skin, genitourinary) exposure to parasitic antigens:

    First event: Production of secretory IgA in saliva against the parasite.
    Secondary events occur only in cases of impaired epithelial tissue integrity, which result in the production of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies in the blood against the parasite.
    Initially, all these antibodies are developed specifically against parasitic antigens. But due to colonic epithelial cell damage caused by proteases produced by the parasite or lectin-like receptors, or due to molecular mimicry, antibodies may be produced against the host tissue antigens, which may in turn initiate autoimmune reaction.

    The simultaneous performance of tests for IgA, IgM, IgG in the blood and IgA in saliva against parasitic antigens and target tissue antigens make it possible to distinguish between pathogenic versus protective antibodies produced against parasitic antigens. Therefore, for the early and comprehensive detection of these parasitic infections as the cause of autoimmune disease, both saliva (IgA) and blood (IgA, IgG, IgM) antibody levels should be measured. Moreover, since impaired immunity, as reflected by a low total secretory IgA, may result in an equally low level of saliva IgA against the offending agent, a false negative result may occur. It is therefore highly recommended that total Secretory IgA always be evaluated along with the specific antibody to parasitic antigens.

[ advertisement ]