IUBio

ELISA question

Omar O. Barriga barriga.2 at osu.edu
Tue Apr 15 20:38:15 EST 1997


In article <19970414173000.NAA22228 at ladder01.news.aol.com> jlk1117440 at aol.com (Jlk1117440) writes:
In article <19970414173000.NAA22228 at ladder01.news.aol.com> jlk1117440 at aol.com (Jlk1117440) writes:
>.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: jlk1117440 at aol.com (Jlk1117440)
>Newsgroups: bionet.immunology
>Subject: ELISA question
>Date: 14 Apr 1997 17:31:02 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Lines: 9
>Message-ID: <19970414173000.NAA22228 at ladder01.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: news at aol.com
>Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu bionet.immunology:11345


>I have performed an ELISA to detect patients' reactivity with a naturally
>occuring protein (about 28 kDa).  Now I have optical density readings of
>the plate, but am not sure if the numbers are significant.  For example,
>if one patient's reading is .250 and another's is .050, is the former
>positive and the latter negative?  I would appreciate any help.

>Jim Knoetgen, MD
>St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center
>New York, New York


Jim:

	Run the tests in quadruplicate and compare the negative samples with the
problem samples by the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (or Wilcoxon rank-sum) test if 
they are independent, or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test if they are related.
If you get a statistical significance of the difference of 0.05 or smaller, 
you have a solid basis to say that the negative and the problem samples are 
different. See Barriga et al, J. Parasitol., 77:703-709, 1991.
	Good luck,
				Omar O.Barriga, DVM, PhD





More information about the Immuno mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net