| Literature DB >> 14613492 |
Jose Luis Gonzales1, Tudor W Jones, Kim Picozzi, Hugo Ribera Cuellar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sporadic outbreaks of bovine trypanosomiasis have been reported in Bolivia since 1996 when T. vivax and T. evansi were identified for the first time by parasitological means. However, comprehensive epidemiological information concerning T. vivax and T. evansi in the country is lacking. Current parasitological and serological diagnostic methods for trypanosomiasis have important limitations either in their sensitivity or specificity, which can result in unreliable data when applied in epidemiological studies. PCR assays are a recently developed procedure that might help to overcome the constraints of parasitological and serological assays. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate PCR assays as a diagnostic tool for epidemiological studies in Bolivia.Entities:
Year: 2003 PMID: 14613492 PMCID: PMC280665 DOI: 10.1186/1475-9292-2-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Kinetoplastid Biol Dis ISSN: 1475-9292
Figure 1Proportion of positive results obtained by province TvPCR: PCR assay for T. vivax TePCR: PCR assay for T. evansi
Diagnostic agreement between PCR assays and parasitological methods
| Positives | Negatives | Positives | Negatives | |||
| 9 | 232 | 0.622 | 0 | 233 | -0.007 | |
| 5 | 233 | 0.389 | 0 | 235 | -0.007 | |
| 2 | 238 | 0.245 | 0 | 230 | -0.020 | |
* There is no agreement analysis between TePCR and thin smears because T. evansi was not diagnosed in the smears observations. + Arbitrary bench marks for evaluating kappa values are : >0.81: almost perfect agreement; 0.61 – 0.80: substantial agreement; 0.41 – 0.60: moderate agreement; 0.21 – 0.40: fair agreement; 0 – 0.20: slight agreement; 0: poor agreement and negative results: no agreement. Kappa rages from 1 (complete agreement) to 0 (agreement is equal to that expected by chance) [24]. PCR shows a statistical agreement with parasitological techniques only in Guarayos. There was no agreement between PCR and the parasitological methods in Sara.
Number of Positive samples detected by parasitological methods
| 13 | 0 | 9 | 252 | |
| 6 | 0 | 4 | 248 | |
* Micro haematocrit centrifugation technique
Retested samples positive by Parasitology and negatives by PCR
| No | |||||||
| 11 | Guarayos | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 198 | Guarayos | Positive | Positive | Negative | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| 200 | Guarayos | Positive | Positive | Negative | Positive | Positive | Positive$ |
| 222 | Guarayos | Negative | Positive | Negative | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| 224 | Guarayos | Negative | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 252 | Guarayos | Positive | Negative | Negative | Positive | Positive | Negative |
| 263 | Sara | Positive | Positive | Negative | Negative | Positive | Negative |
| 267 | Sara | Positive | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 344 | Sara | Positive | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 348 | Sara | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 442 | Sara | Positive | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| 446 | Sara | Positive | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative | Negative |
*All the thin smears positives were confirmed as T. vivax. No T. evansi positive was reported by Parasitology. + TWJ1/2 used with DNA template diluted 1/10. $ TePCR positive sample detected when the test was applied to all the blood spots and later when modifications in the DNA template concentrations were applied.
Figure 2Parasitologically positive samples tested with modification in the DNA concentration and with a new set of primers (M) Molecular marker (a) Template DNA used at a volume of 10 μl (b) Template DNA used at a volume of 7.5 μl (c) Template DNA diluted 1/10 (1) Known negative sample used as control (2) Parasitologically positive sample from Guarayos (3) Parasitologically positive sample from Sara (4) Known Parasitologically positive sample from Guarayos, which was used for the first time when optimising the PCR assay. And now was used as one of the controls.
Results obtained with modified DNA template concentrations and a different primer set
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | ||
| 12 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 7 | |
| 38 | 5 | 33 | 7 | 31 | 8 | 30 | |
| 50 | 5 | 45 | 9 | 41 | 13 | 37 | |
Figure 3Results obtained with modified DNA template concentrations and a different primer set False negatives: parasitologically positive samples but PCR negatives.
Total samples and number of positives identified by test
| Guarayos | 251 | 15 (5.98%) | 251 | 6 (2.39%) | 252 | 153(60.71%) | 167 | 127 (76.05%) | 196 | 143 (56.12%) |
| Sara | 241 | 1 (0.42%) | 241 | 6 (2.50%) | 243 | 44 (18.10%) | 126 | 69 (54.76%) | 245 | 93 (37.96%) |
| Yacuma | 124 | 6 (4.84%) | 124 | 2 (1.61%) | -** | - | 163 | 116 (71.16%) | 209 | 198 (94.74%) |
| Velazco | 48 | 0 | 48 | 0 | - | - | 98 | 47 (47.95%) | 137 | 129 (94.16%) |
* Remaining sample results from accepted Elisa plates ** Blank results are because the tests were not carried out.
Diagnostic agreement between PCR and serological methods for the detection of both T. vivax and T. evansi expressed by the Kappa statistic+
| TvPCR vs TvELISA€ | 7 | - 0.074 | 0 | -0.008 | 6 | 0.030 | 0 | - |
| TvPCR vs TcELISA | 5 | - 0.042 | 0 | -0.008 | 6 | 0.019 | 0 | - |
| TvPCR vs CATT | 12 | 0.039 | 1 | 0.036 | -# | - | - | - |
| TePCR vs CATT | 5 | 0.018 | 3 | 0.101 | - | - | - | - |
| TePCR vs TcELISA€ | 5 | - 0.014 | 1 | -0.027 | 2 | 0.009 | 0 | - |
| TePCR vs TvELISA | 4 | - 0.009 | 2 | -0.039 | 2 | 0.010 | 0 | - |
* Concordant positive samples. # The test was not carried out. € TcELISA: T. congolense ELISA. TvELISA: T. vivax ELISA & Kappa agreement was not carried out for this province because all the PCR results were negative. There was no agreement between those tests
Provinces' prevalence of both T. vivax and T. evansi by test
| Province | |||||||
| 5.16%a | 3.57%a | 5.98%a | 2.39% | 60.71%a | 76.05%a | 56.12%a | |
| 2.77 – 8.66 | 1.65 – 6.67 | 3.08 – 9.18 | 0.88 – 5.13 | 54.39 – 66.78 | 68.84–82.30 | 48.87 – 63.18 | |
| 2.42%ab | 1.61%ab | 0.42b | 2.50% | 18.10%b | 54.76%b | 37.96%b | |
| 0.89 – 5.19 | 0.44 – 4.08 | 0.00 – 2.29 | 0.92 – 5.34 | 13.48 – 23.53 | 45.65–63.64 | 31.86 – 44.36 | |
| 0.00%b | 0.00%b | 4.84%ab | 1.61% | - | 71.16%a | 94.74%c | |
| 0.0–1.46 | 0.0 – 1.46 | 1.80 – 10.23 | 0.20 – 5.70 | 63.56–77.98 | 90.78 – 97.34 | ||
| 0.00%b | 0.00%ab | 0.00% | 0.00% | - | 47.96%b | 94.16%c | |
| 0.00 – 2.42 | 0.00 – 2.42 | 0.00 – 7.39 | 0.00 – 7.39 | 37.76 – 58.29 | 88.81 – 97.44 | ||
a,b,c Values in the same column with unlike superscrip differ significantly (p < 0.05). The statistical analysis was carried out with X2 or Fisher exact tests
Figure 4Prevalence rates obtained by each test in each province