Eman M Hussein1, Eman K El-Gayar2, Ola A Ismail2, Amira B Mokhtar2, Maha M Al-Abbassy2. 1. Medical Parasitology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, 41522, Egypt. emanmob@hotmail.com. 2. Medical Parasitology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, 41522, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of cyclosporiasis is currently based on the microscopic detection of oocysts, which may provide invalid results. The availability of simple, objective immunological screening tests would facilitate epidemiological studies of cyclosporiasis. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify the antigens of Cyclospora cayetanensis oocysts and their validity in serodiagnosis. METHODS: According to parasitological and molecular diagnoses, three study groups were specified. Group (G) I included 30 patients with cyclosporiasis, GII included 12 patients with other parasitic infections, and GIII included 16 healthy subjects. SDS-PAGE was used to analyse C. cayetanensis antigens, and the validity of western blotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) was then assessed amongst the sera of all study groups. RESULTS: The C. cayetanensis antigenic profile showed eight characteristic bands with molecular weights ranging from 14 to 175 kDa. Western blot analysis of sera revealed 93.3% (28/30 of GI) and 92.8% (26/28 of GII and III) sensitivity and specificity, respectively, dividing the patients in GI into four subgroups. The most frequent diagnostic bands (71.4% of GI sera) showed weights of 26-28 kDa, followed by 71 kDa (53.6%). ELISA sensitivity was 90% (27/30), and specificity was 78.6%. Validation showed perfect agreement between the PCR and western blot results, and ELISA presented substantial agreement with both the PCR and western blot results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the existence of high immunogenic diversity in C. cayetanensis and indicate that the 26-28 kDa immunogenic groups may potentially be used as a diagnostic marker of cyclosporiasis. Due to the high validity of ELISA, it might be the test of choice for the routine serodiagnosis of cyclosporiasis.
INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of cyclosporiasis is currently based on the microscopic detection of oocysts, which may provide invalid results. The availability of simple, objective immunological screening tests would facilitate epidemiological studies of cyclosporiasis. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify the antigens of Cyclospora cayetanensis oocysts and their validity in serodiagnosis. METHODS: According to parasitological and molecular diagnoses, three study groups were specified. Group (G) I included 30 patients with cyclosporiasis, GII included 12 patients with other parasitic infections, and GIII included 16 healthy subjects. SDS-PAGE was used to analyse C. cayetanensis antigens, and the validity of western blotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) was then assessed amongst the sera of all study groups. RESULTS: The C. cayetanensis antigenic profile showed eight characteristic bands with molecular weights ranging from 14 to 175 kDa. Western blot analysis of sera revealed 93.3% (28/30 of GI) and 92.8% (26/28 of GII and III) sensitivity and specificity, respectively, dividing the patients in GI into four subgroups. The most frequent diagnostic bands (71.4% of GI sera) showed weights of 26-28 kDa, followed by 71 kDa (53.6%). ELISA sensitivity was 90% (27/30), and specificity was 78.6%. Validation showed perfect agreement between the PCR and western blot results, and ELISA presented substantial agreement with both the PCR and western blot results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the existence of high immunogenic diversity in C. cayetanensis and indicate that the 26-28 kDa immunogenic groups may potentially be used as a diagnostic marker of cyclosporiasis. Due to the high validity of ELISA, it might be the test of choice for the routine serodiagnosis of cyclosporiasis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antigens; C. cayetanensis; ELISA; Oocysts; SDS-PAGE; Western blotting
Authors: Maha M Abou Gamra; Hala S Elwakil; Hala K El Deeb; Khalifa E Khalifa; Hala E Abd Elhafiz Journal: Parasitol Res Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 2.289
Authors: Damer P Blake; Patricia Hesketh; Andrew Archer; Fionnadh Carroll; Adrian L Smith; Martin W Shirley Journal: Mol Biochem Parasitol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: A B Di Gliullo; M S Cribari; A J Bava; J S Cicconetti; R Collazos Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2000 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.846
Authors: M L Eberhard; Y R Ortega; D E Hanes; E K Nace; R Q Do; M G Robl; K Y Won; C Gavidia; N L Sass; K Mansfield; A Gozalo; J Griffiths; R Gilman; C R Sterling; M J Arrowood Journal: J Parasitol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 1.276
Authors: Joel L N Barratt; Subin Park; Fernanda S Nascimento; Jessica Hofstetter; Mateusz Plucinski; Shannon Casillas; Richard S Bradbury; Michael J Arrowood; Yvonne Qvarnstrom; Eldin Talundzic Journal: Parasitology Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.234