Literature DB >> 25661496

Diagnostic performance of serological tests for swine brucellosis in the presence of false positive serological reactions.

L Dieste-Pérez1, J M Blasco1, M J de Miguel1, I Moriyón2, P M Muñoz3.   

Abstract

Swine brucellosis caused by Brucella suis biovar 2 is an emerging disease in Europe. Currently used diagnostic tests for swine brucellosis detect antibodies to the O-polysaccharide (O-PS) of Brucella smooth lipopolysaccharide (S-LPS) but their specificity is compromised by false-positive serological reactions (FPSRs) when bacteria carrying cross-reacting O-PS infect pigs. FPSRs occur throughout Europe, and the only tool available for a specific B. suis diagnosis is the intradermal test with Brucella protein extracts free of O-PS or S-LPS. Using sera of 162 sows naturally infected by B. suis biovar 2, 406 brucellosis-free sows, and 218 pigs of brucellosis-free farms affected by FPSR, we assessed the diagnostic performance of an indirect ELISA with rough LPS (thus devoid of O-PS) and of gel immunodiffusion, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, latex agglutination and indirect ELISA with O-PS free proteins in comparison with several S-LPS tests (Rose Bengal, complement fixation, gel immunodiffusion and indirect ELISA). When adjusted to 100% specificity, the sensitivity of the rough LPS ELISA was very low (30%), and adoption of other cut-offs resulted in poor specificity/sensitivity ratios. Although their specificity was 100%, the sensitivity of protein tests (ELISA, latex agglutination, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, and gel immunodiffusion) was only moderate (45, 58, 61 and 63%, respectively). Among S-LPS tests, gel immunodiffusion was the only test showing acceptable sensitivity/specificity (68 and 100%, respectively). Despite these shortcomings, and when the purpose is to screen out FPSR at herd level, gel immunodiffusion tests may offer a technically simple and practical alternative to intradermal testing.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brucella suis; Cytosolic proteins; FPSR; Porcine brucellosis; Serological tests

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25661496     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  5 in total

1.  Comparing Rapid and Specific Detection of Brucella in Clinical Samples by PCR-ELISA and Multiplex-PCR Method.

Authors:  Sharareh Mohammad Hasani; Reza Mirnejad; Jafar Amani; Mohamad Javad Vafadar
Journal:  Iran J Pathol       Date:  2016

2.  A Bacterial Glycoengineered Antigen for Improved Serodiagnosis of Porcine Brucellosis.

Authors:  María E Cortina; Rodrigo E Balzano; Diego A Rey Serantes; Ana J Caillava; Sebastián Elena; A C Ferreira; Ana M Nicola; Juan E Ugalde; Diego J Comerci; Andrés E Ciocchini
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Environment and Offspring Surveillance in Porcine Brucellosis.

Authors:  Agustín Rebollada-Merino; Marta Pérez-Sancho; Antonio Rodríguez-Bertos; Nerea García; Irene Martínez; Alejandro Navarro; Lucas Domínguez; Teresa García-Seco
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-06-21

Review 4.  Swine brucellosis: current perspectives.

Authors:  S C Olsen; F M Tatum
Journal:  Vet Med (Auckl)       Date:  2016-12-20

5.  Development of a Multiplex Bead Assay to Detect Serological Responses to Brucella Species in Domestic Pigs and Wild Boar with the Potential to Overcome Cross-Reactivity with Yersinia enterocolitica O:9.

Authors:  Antonia Touloudi; John McGiven; Shaun Cawthraw; George Valiakos; Polychronis Kostoulas; Lucy Duncombe; Christian Gortázar; Mariana Boadella; Marina Sofia; Zoi Athanasakopoulou; Dimitris C Chatzopoulos; Vassiliki Spyrou; Liljana Petrovska; Charalambos Billinis
Journal:  Microorganisms       Date:  2022-07-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.