| Literature DB >> 25809058 |
Abdelkrim Aroussi1, Philippe Vignoles1, François Dalmay2, Laurence Wimel3, Marie-Laure Dardé4, Aurélien Mercier1, Daniel Ajzenberg4.
Abstract
In France, some cases of severe toxoplasmosis have been linked to the consumption of horse meat that had been imported from the American continent where atypical strains of Toxoplasma gondii are more common than in Europe. Many seroprevalence studies are presented in the literature but risk assessment of T. gondii infection after horse meat consumption is not possible in the absence of validated serological tests and the unknown correlation between detection of antibodies against T. gondii and presence of tissue cysts. We performed magnetic-capture polymerase chain reaction (MC-PCR) to detect T. gondii DNA in 231 horse meat samples purchased in supermarkets in France and evaluated the performance and level of agreement of the modified agglutination test (MAT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the meat juices. The serological tests lacked sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between them, and there was no correlation with the presence of T. gondii DNA in horse meat, raising concerns about the reliability of T. gondii seroprevalence data in horses from the literature. T. gondii DNA was detected in 43% of horse meat samples but the absence of strain isolation in mice following inoculation of more than 100 horse meat samples suggests a low distribution of cysts in skeletal muscles and a low risk of T. gondii infection associated with horse meat consumption. However, to avoid any risk of toxoplasmosis, thorough cooking of horse meat is recommended. © A. Aroussi et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2015.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25809058 PMCID: PMC4374124 DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2015014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite ISSN: 1252-607X Impact factor: 3.000
Geographic origin of 231 horse meat samples and prevalence estimation of T. gondii in horse meat according to MC-PCR, MAT, and ELISA (OD) results.
| Country No. (%) | MC-PCR + No. (%) [95% CI] | MAT > 0 No. (%) [95% CI] | MAT > 1:20 No. (%) [95% CI] | MAT > 1:40 No. (%) [95% CI] | OD > 0.06 No. (%) [95% CI] | OD > 0.1015 No. (%) [95% CI] | OD > 0.1145 No. (%) [95% CI] | OD > 0.15 No. (%) [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 (50.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (100.00%) | 2 (100.00%) | 2 (100.00%) | 2 (100.00%) |
| 2 (0.86%) | [0.01–0.98] | [0–0.842] | [0–0.84] | [0–0.84] | [0.15–1] | [0.15–1] | [0.15–1] | [0.15–1] |
| Argentina | 50 (53.76%) | 56 (60.22%) | 18 (19.35%) | 12 (12.90%) | 81 (87.10%) | 52 (55.91%) | 52 (55.91%) | 40 (43.01%)) |
| 93 (40.26%) | [0.43–0.64] | [0.49–0.70] | [0.11–0.28] | [0.06–0.21] | [0.78–0.93] | [0.45–0.66] | [0.45–0.66] | [0.32–0.53] |
| Canada | 12 (26.09%) | 31 (67.39%) | 17 (36.96%) | 8 (17.39%) | 44 (95.65%) | 30 (65.22%) | 29 (63.04%) | 25 (54.35%) |
| 46 (19.92%) | [0.14–0.41] | [0.52–0.80] | [0.23–0.52] | [0.07–0.31] | [0.85–0.99] | [0.49–0.78] | [0.47–0.76] | [0.39–0.69] |
| France | 10 (71.43%) | 10 (71.43%) | 1 (7.14%) | 0 (0.00%) | 12 (85.71%) | 7 (50.00%) | 6 (42.86%) | 4 (28.57%) |
| 14 (6.06%) | [0.41–0.91] | [0.41–0.91] | [0.00–0.33] | [0–0.23] | [0.57–0.98] | [0.23–0.77] | [0.17–0.71] | [0.08–0.58] |
| Unknown | 21 (52.50%) | 22 (55.00%) | 13 (32.50%) | 7 (17.50%) | 38 (95.00%) | 26 (65.00%) | 23 (57.50%) | 20 (50.00%) |
| 40 (17.32%) | [0.36–0.68] | [0.38–0.70] | [0.18–0.49] | [0.07–0.32] | [0.83–0.99] | [0.48–0.79] | [0.40–0.73] | [0.33–0.66] |
| Mexico | 2 (6.25%) | 17 (53.13%) | 4 (12.50%) | 2 (6.25%) | 27 (84.38%) | 15 (46.88%) | 14 (43.75%) | 12 (37.50%) |
| 32 (13.85%) | [0.00–0.20] | [0.34–0.70] | [0.03–0.29] | [0.00–0.20] | [0.67–0.94] | [0.29–0.65] | [0.26–0.62] | [0.21–0.56] |
| Uruguay | 3 (75.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 3 (75.00%) | 3 (75.00%) | 3 (75.00%) | 2 (50.00%) |
| 4 (1.73%) | [0.19–0.99] | [0–0.60] | [0–0.60] | [0–0.60] | [0.19–0.99] | [0.19–0.99] | [0.19–0.99] | [0.06–0.93] |
| Total | 99 (42.86%) | 136 (58.87%) | 53 (22.94%) | 29 (12.55%) | 207 (89.61%) | 135 (58.44%) | 129 (55.84%) | 105 (45.45%) |
| 231 (100%) | [0.36–0.49] | [0.52–0.65] | [0.17–0.28] | [0.08–0.17] | [0.84–0.93] | [0.51–0.64] | [0.49–0.62] | [0.38–0.52] |
Figure 1.Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of ELISA and MAT vs. MC-PCR in meat juice samples.
Statistical measures of the performance of ELISA (OD) and MAT with different cut-offs compared with MC-PCR for detecting T. gondii in horse meat samples.
| MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | MC-PCR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity, % | 90.91% | 65.66% | 61.62% | 49.49% | 65.66% | 45.45% | 32.32% | 19.19% |
| (95% CI) | (0.85–0.97) | (0.56–0.75) | (0.52–0.71) | (0.40–0.59) | (0.56–0.75) | (0.36–0.55) | (0.23–0.42) | (0.11–0.27) |
| Specificity, % | 11.36% | 46.97% | 48.48% | 57.58% | 46.21% | 70.45% | 84.09% | 92.42% |
| (95% CI) | (0.06–0.17) | (0.38–0.55) | (0.40–0.57) | (0.49–0.66) | (0.38–0.55) | (0.63–0.78) | (0.78–0.90) | (0.88–0.97) |
| PPV, % | 43.48% | 48.15% | 47.29% | 46.67% | 47.79% | 53.57% | 60.38% | 65.52% |
| (95% CI) | (0.37–0.50) | (0.40–0.57) | (0.39–0.56) | (0.37–0.56) | (0.39–0.56) | (0.43–0.64) | (0.47–0.74) | (0.48–0.83) |
| NPV, % | 62.50% | 64.58% | 62.75% | 60.32% | 64.21% | 63.27% | 62.36% | 60.40% |
| (95% CI) | (0.43–0.82) | (0.55–0.74) | (0.53–0.72) | (0.52–0.69) | (0.55–0.74) | (0.55–0.71) | (0.55–0.69) | (0.54–0.67) |
| Kappa coefficient | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.12 |
| McNemar test |
|
|
| NS |
| NS |
|
|
MC-PCR is the reference test; PPV is the positive predictive value; NPV is the negative predictive value; NS means not significant.