| Literature DB >> 25429289 |
Aideen E Kennedy1, Ana T Da Silva2, Noel Byrne2, Rodney Govender3, John MacSharry4, Jim O'Mahony3, Riona G Sayers2.
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) of milk and serum samples are a routinely used method of screening herds for Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). Infection with MAP causes granulomatous enteritis of ruminants known as Johne's disease (JD). The sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of MAP ELISAs leads to difficulties in the identification of both infected and infectious animals. Interference with MAP ELISA Se and Sp has been reported in MAP seronegative cows following administration of purified protein derivative (PPD) as part of intradermal testing for bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The aim of this study is to examine the impact of the single intradermal cervical comparative test (SICCT) for bTB, on both serum and milk MAP ELISA tests, in a herd containing both seropositive and seronegative cows pre-SICCT. A secondary objective is to provide appropriate timing of JD ELISA tests in relation to the SICCT. A herd of 139 cows were serum and milk sampled pre- and post-SICCT administration. Prior to SICCT, 6% of the herd tested seropositive for MAP using milk ELISA, with 8% positive on serum. ID Screen Paratuberculosis Indirect Screening Test (ID Vet) was used to screen the herd. Within 14 days of PPD administration, a significant increase in the prevalence of seropositive cows was recorded. Identical prevalence's were recorded with both test matrices (39%). ELISA values remained significantly higher until day 43 post-SICCT in milk (P = 0.850), and day 71 in serum (P = 0.602). If the "new" positives detected post-bTB testing are deemed false positives due to generation of cross-reacting antibodies by administration of PPD, milk would appear a more suitable sample for JD ELISA testing within 2 months of SICCT. In summary, sampling for JD utilizing milk ELISA should be avoided in the 43-day period following PPD administration, with serum ELISA sampling avoided for an additional 28 days.Entities:
Keywords: ELISA; Johne’s disease; Mycobacteriacea; PPD; TB test
Year: 2014 PMID: 25429289 PMCID: PMC4228858 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Timetable of serum and milk samples and dates of SICCT.
| Serum sampling date | Milk sampling date | Days post-PPD administration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre SICCT | May 29 | May 31 | |
| SICCT test day 1 PPD administration | June 11 | 0 | |
| SICCT day 2 | June 14 | 3 | |
| SICCT day 2 – serum sample only | June 14 | 3 | |
| Post SICCT Match 1 | June 20 | 9 | |
| June 25 | 14 | ||
| Post SICCT Match 2 | July 11 | July 11 | 30 |
| Post SICCT Match 3 | July 24 | July 24 | 43 |
| Post SICCT Match 4 | August 8 | August 8 | 58 |
| Post SICCT Match 5 | August 21 | August 21 | 71 |
| September 5 | No sample | 99 | |
| Post SICCT Match 6 | October 1 | October 1 | 112 |
| Post SICCT Match 7 | November 1 | November 1 | 143 |
Figure 1Percentage (%) of the herd testing positive on Johne’s disease ELISAs (milk and serum) at different trial days, both pre and post the administration of the TB test. An increased number of positives are identified post TB test administration.
Figure 2Box plot identifying differences in serum ELISA . To improve visualization of interquartile ranges, only S/P values <250 are shown.
Figure 3Box plot identifying differences in milk ELISA . To improve visualization of interquartile ranges, only S/P values <150 shown.
Multivariable GEE analysis of milk ELISA as a continuous (.
| Time point | |||||||
| June 20 vs. Maya | 17.2 | 14.3, 20.2 | 11.1 | 5.8, 21.0 | |||
| July 11 vs. May | 5.43 | 2.5, 8.4 | 2.7 | 1.4, 5.1 | |||
| July 24 vs. May | 0.29 | 0.850 | −2.7, 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.819 | 0.5, 2.3 | |
| August 8 vs. May | 0.94 | 0.537 | −2.1, 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.831 | 0.5, 2.3 | Sampling time point |
| August 21 vs. May | 0.42 | 0.784 | −2.6, 3.4 | 1.1 | 0.829 | 0.5, 2.3 | Parity |
| Oct vs. May | 1.51 | 0.322 | −1.5, 4.5 | 1.8 | 0.105 | 0.9, 3.5 | Breed |
| Nov vs. May | 5.65 | 2.6, 8.7 | 2.5 | 1.3, 4.9 | Calving date | ||
| Parity | |||||||
| 1b vs. 2 | −11.2 | −5.4, −17.0 | 0.3 | 1.6, 10.3 | |||
| 2 vs. 3 | 11.2 | 17.5, 4.7 | 3.3 | 0.1, 0.9 | |||
| 2 vs. 4 | 8.3 | 13.5, 3.1 | 2.5 | 0.2, 0.8 | |||
.
Multivariable GEE analysis of serum ELISA as a continuous (.
| Time point | |||||||
| June 14 vs. May | 4.4 | 0.197 | −2.3, 11.0 | 1.1 | 0.668 | 0.6, 2.1 | |
| June 25 vs. May | 33.8 | 27.2, 40.5 | 10.7 | 6.1, 18.8 | |||
| July 11 vs. May | 37.9 | 31.3, 44.6 | 6.4 | 3.7, 11.1 | |||
| July 24 vs. May | 17.0 | 10.3, 23.7 | 2.3 | 1.3, 3.9 | |||
| August 8 vs. May | 8.7 | 2.1, 15.4 | 1.3 | 0.392 | 0.7, 2.3 | ||
| August 21 vs. May | 1.8 | 0.602 | −4.9, 8.4 | 1.1 | 0.659 | 0.5, 1.8 | |
| September 5 vs. May | 4.0 | 0.241 | −2.7, 10.6 | 1.0 | 0.998 | 0.5, 1.8 | |
| October 1 vs. May | 6.0 | 0.080 | −0.7, 12.6 | 0.9 | 0.641 | 0.5, 1.6 | Sampling time point |
| November 1 vs. May | 11.1 | 4.5, 17.7 | 1.3 | 0.392 | 0.7, 2.3 | Parity | |
| Parity | Breed | ||||||
| 1 | −29.4 | −50.4, −8.4 | 0.4 | 0.053 | 0.2, 1.0 | Calving date | |
| 3 vs. 2 | −27.6 | −50.0, −5.3 | 0.3 | 0.1, 0.8 | |||
| 4 vs.2 | −10.0 | 0.296 | −28.8, 8.8 | 0.5 | 0.2, 1.0 | ||
| Calving Date | |||||||
| February vs. January | −4.0 | 0.677 | −22.9, 14.9 | 0.3 | 0.1, 0.6 | ||
| March vs. January | −24.0 | 0.066 | −49.7, 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.1, 0.5 | ||
| April vs. January | −15.9 | 0.304 | −46.3, 14.5 | 0.4 | 0.145 | 0.1, 1.4 | |
| February vs. March | 21.7 | 1.4, 41.9 | 1.7 | 0.241 | 0.7, 4.4 | ||
.
.
Figure 4Variation in period of influence of SICCT in present study compared to Varges et al. (. V1–V3; Approximate S/P results of positive cows identified using “in- house” ELISA by Varges et al. (21). Current; mean ELISA S/P results from entire herd in the present study. Insert; a schematic of primary and secondary/memory immune response [adapted from Tizard (25)].