This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ersin Tan, MD
San Antonio, Tex

D. Joanne Lynn, MD
Columbus, Ohio

Anthony A. Amato, MD
San Antonio

John T. Kissel, MD; Kottil W. Rammohan, MD; Zarife Sahenk, MD; John R. Warmolts, MD
Columbus

Carlayne E. Jackson, MD; Richard J. Barohn, MD
San Antonio

Jerry R. Mendell, MD
Department of Neurology The Ohio State University 1654 Upham Dr Columbus, OH 43210

Arch Neurol. 1995;52(3):230-231.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In reply

Pestronk criticized our article¹ in two areas. First, he comments that inaccurate statements were made regarding measurements of anti-GM₁ ganglioside antibodies in his laboratory. He insists that his methods "correspond closely to the reciprocal of true dilutions," despite the fact that a close inspection reveals that his assay is based on a method of extrapolation. In his assay, serum samples are titered to levels that provide optical densities in a linear range. From the linear range, the expected (not measured) optical density of a 1:100 dilution of the serum is calculated. This value is then multiplied by 1000 and the activity is expressed in units. In the method we¹ and others² employ to measure GM₁ antibodies, the results represent the maximum dilution at which reactivity to GM₁ is maintained at a level of 3 SDs above normal.

A less important point relates . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?