| Literature DB >> 31995591 |
Rongyi Ji1,2, Yuanxi Shen1, Bin Shi3, Hao Li1, Wenqiang Tang3, Chenyang Xia3, Ke Lu1, Danqu Lamu3, Yang Hong1,2, Xueqiang Sun4, Jianzhi Liu3, Lanqi Zhang1, Chuangang Zhu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The existing diagnostic techniques for detecting schistosomiasis turkestanica, such as aetiological assays, identify infection by parasitic worms via the incubation of miracidia from faeces or observing eggs under microscopy. However, they are limited in the diagnosis of low-grade and prepatent infections, which lead to a high misdetection rates. Therefore, a new method for parasite diagnosis with increased sensitivity is urgently needed.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31995591 PMCID: PMC6988949 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Distribution of S. turkestanicum eggs in different organs in Nimu goats.
The majority of the eggs were distributed in the host small intestine. Subdividing the small intestine into three parts (upper, middle, lower), the middle part harboured the majority of the egg burden (68.89%), followed by the caecum (13.57%) and upper small intestine (10.48%). Approximately 2.72% of the eggs were found in the duodenum. There were low numbers of eggs in the lower small intestine (0.43%), colon (0.00%) and rectum (0.01%). Very few eggs were found in the liver (3.90%) and spleen (0.00%).
Fig 2S. turkestanicum eggs.
A: Image of the collected eggs using the NaOH erosion method; B: Structure of the eggs.
Best concentrations of sera and coated SEA.
| Concentration of SEA (μg/ml) | Positive serum dilution | Negative serum dilution | P/N | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | |
| 0.5 | 0.5482 | 0.6776 | 0.6470 | 0.6609 | 0.0918 | 0.1138 | 0.1084 | 0.1296 | 5.9744 | 5.9569 | 5.9686 | 5.1011 |
| 0.75 | 0.4587 | 0.4903 | 0.5409 | 0.6498 | 0.0941 | 0.0945 | 0.1079 | 0.1266 | 4.8772 | 5.1911 | 5.0153 | 5.1315 |
| 1.0 | 0.4619 | 0.5115 | 0.5724 | 0.7256 | 0.0948 | 0.1107 | 0.1027 | 0.1408 | 4.8724 | 4.6206 | 5.5730 | 5.1534 |
| 1.5 | 0.3615 | 0.3547 | 0.4378 | 0.5749 | 0.0817 | 0.0878 | 0.0851 | 0.0897 | 4.4268 | 4.0399 | 5.1476 | 6.4127 |
Best concentrations of sera and coated SWAP.
| Concentration of SWAP (μg/ml) | Positive serum dilution | Negative serum dilution | P/N | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 50 | |
| 0.5 | 0.1356 | 0.1527 | 0.1778 | 0.2086 | 0.0777 | 0.0757 | 0.0759 | 0.0844 | 1.7434 | 2.0172 | 2.3426 | 2.4701 |
| 0.75 | 0.1590 | 0.1677 | 0.1666 | 0.1935 | 0.0747 | 0.0718 | 0.0796 | 0.0842 | 2.1285 | 2.3373 | 2.6936 | 2.2987 |
| 1.0 | 0.1980 | 0.2029 | 0.2350 | 0.2778 | 0.0745 | 0.0733 | 0.0814 | 0.0882 | 2.6563 | 2.7683 | 2.8870 | 3.1494 |
| 1.5 | 0.2228 | 0.2661 | 0.2844 | 0.3223 | 0.0766 | 0.0734 | 0.0825 | 0.0815 | 2.9105 | 3.6247 | 3.4500 | 3.9564 |
Fig 3Specificity, sensitivity and cross-reactivity detection.
Each OD value is representative of the mean of three absorbance values. The sensitivity and specificity testing groups comprised 100 goat sera samples negative for S. turkestanicum and 48 goat sera samples positive for S. turkestanicum. The cross-reactivity group comprised 54 buffalo sera samples positive for S. japonicum. The charts were created in Prism 5.0 software.
Fig 4Clinical sample detection.
3-6: There were 7 goats aged from 3 to 6 months in this group, 4 of which were infected with S. turkestanicum according to the ELISA; 6–12: There were 21 goats aged from 6 to 12 months in this group, 18 of which were infected with S. turkestanicum according to the ELISA; 12–24: There were 47 goats aged from 12 to 24 months in this group, 46 of which were infected with S. turkestanicum according to the ELISA; 24-: There were 39 goats aged over 24 months in this group, 39 of which were infected with S. turkestanicum according to the ELISA.