Literature DB >> 19802039

Comparison of the Q-fever complement fixation test and two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of serum antibodies against Coxiella burnetti (Q-fever) in ruminants : recommendations for use of serological tests on imported animals in New Zealand.

R Kittelberger1, J Mars, G Wibberley, R Sting, K Henning, G W Horner, K M Garnett, M J Hannah, J A Jenner, C J Piggott, J S O'Keefe.   

Abstract

AIM: To make valid recommendations on the use of serological test methods for the detection of serum antibodies in ruminants against Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever), by comparing the performance of the complement fixation test (CFT) and two ELISA, and by identifying reasons for discrepancies between the test methods.
METHODS: A total of 73 serum samples from infected cattle, 69 from infected goats, and 100 samples from non-infected cattle and 57 samples from non-infected sheep, as well as 95 samples from infected cattle herds (mix of seropositive and seronegative samples), were tested using the CFT, the IDEXX ELISA (I-ELISA) and the Pourquier ELISA (P-ELISA). A mixed panel of 12 serum samples from sheep from inter-laboratory proficiency testing (proficiency panel) was also tested using the CFT and both ELISA, and further investigated using IgG- and IgM-specific ELISA.
RESULTS: Generally, the two commercial ELISA were more sensitive than the CFT for the detection of infected ruminants. Good agreement between ELISA for positive and negative results was found for samples from the infected herd, while results for the positive panels varied between the two ELISA. For the total of the positive serum panels, the I-ELISA detected 95% of samples as positive or suspicious, while the P-ELISA detected only 81%. In the P-ELISA, more samples were considered suspicious (18%) than in the I-ELISA (14%). All sera from non-infected sheep and cattle tested negative in the serological test methods employed, except for one positive sample from a sheep in the P-ELISA. Further investigation revealed that a CFT-positive but ELISA-negative result was due to high IgM and low IgG reactivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The two commercial ELISA were more sensitive than the CFT in all panels from infected ruminants. However, they could only detect IgG. The I-ELISA should be the serological test method of choice for cattle, sheep and goats for import testing of animals into New Zealand because it was more sensitive than the P-ELISA and was equally specific to the PELISA and the CFT. For other animal species, such as deer and camelids, the CFT should still be used since none of the ELISA has been evaluated for these species. This study has shown that the two commercial ELISA will detect the majority of infected ruminants but may miss animals that have not developed an IgG response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19802039     DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2009.58619

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Z Vet J        ISSN: 0048-0169            Impact factor:   1.628


  9 in total

1.  Serological Evidence of Coxiella burnetii Infection in Cattle and Goats in Bangladesh.

Authors:  Najmul Haider; Md Shafiqur Rahman; Salah Uddin Khan; Andrea Mikolon; Muzaffor G Osmani; Emily S Gurley; Ireen Sultana Shanta; Suman Kumer Paul; Laura Macfarlane-Berry; Ariful Islam; Ausraful Islam; James Desmond; Jonathan H Epstein; Rachael A Priestley; Gilbert J Kersh; Mohammed Ziaur Rahman; Peter Daszak; Stephen P Luby; Robert F Massung; Nord Zeidner
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.184

2.  Characterization of recombinant Ybgf protein for the detection of Coxiella antibodies in ruminants.

Authors:  Gianmarco Ferrara; Barbara Colitti; Ugo Pagnini; Giuseppe Iovane; Sergio Rosati; Serena Montagnaro
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 1.569

3.  Bayesian Validation of the Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay and Its Superiority to the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay and the Complement Fixation Test for Detecting Antibodies against Coxiella burnetii in Goat Serum.

Authors:  Michael Muleme; John Stenos; Gemma Vincent; Angus Campbell; Stephen Graves; Simone Warner; Joanne M Devlin; Chelsea Nguyen; Mark A Stevenson; Colin R Wilks; Simon M Firestone
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2016-06-06

4.  Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in Washington State domestic goat herds.

Authors:  Kerry S Sondgeroth; Margaret A Davis; Sara L Schlee; Andy J Allen; James F Evermann; Terry F McElwain; Tim V Baszler
Journal:  Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.133

5.  Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in goats and sheep in northern Jordan.

Authors:  Shawkat Q Lafi; Abdelsalam Q Talafha; Mohamad A Abu-Dalbouh; Raed S Hailat; Mohammad S Khalifeh
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 1.559

6.  Seroprevalence and risk factors of Q fever in goats on commercial dairy goat farms in the Netherlands, 2009-2010.

Authors:  Barbara Schimmer; Saskia Luttikholt; Jeannine L A Hautvast; Elisabeth A M Graat; Piet Vellema; Yvonne T H P van Duynhoven
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Evaluation using latent class models of the diagnostic performances of three ELISA tests commercialized for the serological diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii infection in domestic ruminants.

Authors:  Thibaut Lurier; Elodie Rousset; Patrick Gasqui; Carole Sala; Clément Claustre; David Abrial; Philippe Dufour; Renée de Crémoux; Kristel Gache; Marie Laure Delignette-Muller; Florence Ayral; Elsa Jourdain
Journal:  Vet Res       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.683

8.  Seroprevalence of coxiellosis (Q fever) in sheep & goat in Puducherry & neighbouring Tamil Nadu.

Authors:  Selvaraj Stephen; Balakrishnan Sangeetha; Prabakhar X Antony
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Seroprevalence and risk factors for <i>Coxiella burnetii</i>, the causative agent of Q fever in the dromedary camel (<i>Camelus dromedarius</i>) population in Algeria.

Authors:  Mohammed H Benaissa; Samir Ansel; Abdallah Mohamed-Cherif; Karima Benfodil; Djamel Khelef; Curtis R Youngs; Rachid Kaidi; Khatima Ait-Oudhia
Journal:  Onderstepoort J Vet Res       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 1.792

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.