Sorry if this question is redundant, but what IgG and IgM postive bands are "slam dunk" in ELISA testing. My understanding of the readings should be 41 kDa+++ in both antibodies. Plus back that up with dual positive 23-25 and dual positive 66.
I'm interpreting for someone else, but I know you guys are more experienced with this. Microw
Posted by 'Kete-tracker (Member # 17189) on :
If you mean by "slam dunk"- what bands being '+' say you have Lyme diease for sure? Afraid that's not quite how it works.
You look for a couple bands (or more) that are "lyme-specific", indicating presence of anti-bodies that would only be there if you'd been exposed to Lyme spirochetes [in the very recent past- if it shows on the IgM & more than about 4 mo.s ago if it appears on the IgG].
IF bands 23-25 AND 66 are Lyme-specific, that would mean a positive test result for most LLMDS. Some LLMDs are satisfied with ONE Lyme specific band to "confirm" Lyme (Diagnosis is CLINICAL).
But, as I don't remember which bands ARE Lyme-specific, you'll need to click on the link near the top of the Medical Questions topics: 'Dr C's Western Blot explanation'. ;-)
Re: 41kDa- You can be 41-negative on the IgM & still have Lyme. You can be 41+ & have syphillis! In fact ANY of the borrelia diseases (incl. relapsing fever) can trigger a 41+, as it's an indicator of an antibody that targets the flagela [tail] common to all the 'ketes.
Note: There IS a very recently developed test that supposedly shows more specifics on any 41+ band, that is, if it's + from Lyme or not. Not sure what it is, but I've read about it.
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
print it out and read over and over! it eventualy makes more sense to you ok.
Posted by microw (Member # 14702) on :
Thanks guys for the info. I can see how these tests can be confusing, esp. since the most identifying antigens are osp [outer surface proteins].
Plus, the fact the antigens are processed within cell machinery before presented to antibodies. [foreign antigens are not recognized by ab presenting cells in native state] This takes into account the individuals HLA type and the shape of the peptide antigen. By that time, it could be identical to other, albeit similar antigens. And, not everyone has same antibody affinity either.
So, how they come to statistical consensus is questionable in my opinion. I see better tests coming out soon. Nanotech is the way to go. They will have super accurate biosensers that will have higher specificity for low abundant target proteins.
I am not saying that western blot is an out-dated tool, I just think the pathogen is too slippery for positive conformation, and there are some suspicious qualities about the way BB and other similar forms present in individual patients. Microw