Comparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosis
BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is a world-wide extended zoonosis that causes a grave problem in developing economies. Animal vaccination and diagnosis are essential to control brucellosis, and the need for accurate but also simple and low-cost tests that can be implemented in low-infrastructure laboratories has been emphasized.
METHODOLOGY: We evaluated bovine, sheep, goat and swine lateral flow immunochromatography assay kits (LFA), the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a well-validated protein G indirect ELISA (iELISA) using sera of Brucella culture-positive and unvaccinated brucellosis free livestock. Sera from cattle vaccinated with S19 and RB51 brucellosis vaccines were also tested. Finally, we compared RBT and LFA using sera of white Fulani cattle of unknown bacteriological status from a brucellosis endemic area of Nigeria.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were not statistically significant, RBT showed the highest values for diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in cattle (LFA, 96.6/98.8; RBT, 98.9/100; and iELISA, 96.6/100) and the iELISA yielded highest values in sheep (LFA, 94.0/100; RBT, 92.0/100; iELISA, 100/100), goats (LFA, 95.7/96.2; RBT, 97.8/100; iELISA, 100/100) and pigs (LFA, 92.3/100; RBT, 92.3/100; iELISA, 100/100). Vaccine S19 administered subcutaneously interfered in all tests but conjunctival application minimized the problem. Although designed not to interfere in serodiagnosis, vaccine RB51 interfered in LFA and iELISA but not in the RBT. We found closely similar apparent prevalence results when testing the Nigerian Fulani cattle by RBT and LFA. Although both RBT and LFA (showing similar diagnostic performance) are suitable for small laboratories in resource-limited areas, RBT has the advantage that a single reagent is useful in all animal species. Considering these advantages, its low cost and that it is also useful for human brucellosis diagnosis, RBT might be a good choice for resource-limited laboratories.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
PLoS neglected tropical diseases - 13(2019), 6 vom: 19. Juni, Seite e0007509 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Gusi, Amahyel M [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
1ZPG1ELY14 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 26.11.2019 Date Revised 09.03.2020 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM29832461X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM29832461X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225093917.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0994.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM29832461X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)31216271 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gusi, Amahyel M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 26.11.2019 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is a world-wide extended zoonosis that causes a grave problem in developing economies. Animal vaccination and diagnosis are essential to control brucellosis, and the need for accurate but also simple and low-cost tests that can be implemented in low-infrastructure laboratories has been emphasized | ||
| 520 | |a METHODOLOGY: We evaluated bovine, sheep, goat and swine lateral flow immunochromatography assay kits (LFA), the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a well-validated protein G indirect ELISA (iELISA) using sera of Brucella culture-positive and unvaccinated brucellosis free livestock. Sera from cattle vaccinated with S19 and RB51 brucellosis vaccines were also tested. Finally, we compared RBT and LFA using sera of white Fulani cattle of unknown bacteriological status from a brucellosis endemic area of Nigeria | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were not statistically significant, RBT showed the highest values for diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in cattle (LFA, 96.6/98.8; RBT, 98.9/100; and iELISA, 96.6/100) and the iELISA yielded highest values in sheep (LFA, 94.0/100; RBT, 92.0/100; iELISA, 100/100), goats (LFA, 95.7/96.2; RBT, 97.8/100; iELISA, 100/100) and pigs (LFA, 92.3/100; RBT, 92.3/100; iELISA, 100/100). Vaccine S19 administered subcutaneously interfered in all tests but conjunctival application minimized the problem. Although designed not to interfere in serodiagnosis, vaccine RB51 interfered in LFA and iELISA but not in the RBT. We found closely similar apparent prevalence results when testing the Nigerian Fulani cattle by RBT and LFA. Although both RBT and LFA (showing similar diagnostic performance) are suitable for small laboratories in resource-limited areas, RBT has the advantage that a single reagent is useful in all animal species. Considering these advantages, its low cost and that it is also useful for human brucellosis diagnosis, RBT might be a good choice for resource-limited laboratories | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Fluorescent Dyes |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Rose Bengal |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 1ZPG1ELY14 |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bertu, Wilson J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jesús de Miguel, M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dieste-Pérez, Lucía |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Smits, Henk L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ocholi, Reuben A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Blasco, José M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moriyón, Ignacio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Muñoz, Pilar M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t PLoS neglected tropical diseases |d 2007 |g 13(2019), 6 vom: 19. Juni, Seite e0007509 |w (DE-627)NLM17489287X |x 1935-2735 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2019 |g number:6 |g day:19 |g month:06 |g pages:e0007509 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2019 |e 6 |b 19 |c 06 |h e0007509 | ||