| Literature DB >> 35118153 |
Carine L Holz1, Joseph R Darish1, Kelly Straka2, Nicole Grosjean1, Steven Bolin1, Matti Kiupel1, Srinand Sreevatsan1.
Abstract
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible prion disorder, primarily affecting free-ranging and captive cervids in North America (United States and Canada), South Korea, and Europe (Finland, Norway, and Sweden). Current diagnostic methods used in the United States for detection of CWD in hunter harvested deer involve demonstration of the causal misfolded prion protein (PrPCWD) in the obex or retropharyngeal lymph nodes (RLNs) using an antigen detection ELISA as a screening tool, followed by a confirmation by the gold standard method, immunohistochemistry (IHC). Real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) assay is a newer approach that amplifies misfolded CWD prions in vitro and has facilitated CWD prion detection in a variety of tissues, body fluids, and excreta. The current study was undertaken to compare ELISA, IHC, and RT-QuIC on RLNs (n = 1,300 animals) from white-tailed deer (WTD) in Michigan. In addition, prescapular, prefemoral and popliteal lymph nodes collected from a small subset (n = 7) of animals were tested. Lastly, the location of the positive samples within Michigan was documented and the percentage of CWD positive RLNs was calculated by sex and age. ELISA and RT-QuIC detected PrPCWD in 184 and 178 out of 1,300 RLNs, respectively. Of the 184 ELISA positive samples, 176 were also IHC positive for CWD. There were seven discordant results when comparing IHC and ELISA. RT-QuIC revealed that six of the seven samples matched the IHC outcomes. One RLN was negative by IHC, but positive by ELISA and RT-QuIC. RT-QuIC, IHC, and ELISA also detected PrPCWD in prescapular, prefemoral and popliteal lymph nodes. CWD infection heterogeneities were observed in different age and sex groups, with young males having higher CWD prevalence. All, except one, CWD positive RLNs analyzed were from ten Counties geographically located in the West Michigan region of the Lower Peninsula. Taken together, we show evidence that the RT-QuIC assay is comparable to ELISA and IHC and could be helpful for routine CWD detection in surveillance programs. RT-QuIC also demonstrated that CWD prions are distributed across lymph nodes in a variety of anatomic locations. A multi-laboratory validation on blinded sample panels is underway and is likely to help to provide insight into the variability (lab-to-lab), analytical sensitivity, and specificity of gold standard diagnostics vs. RT-QuIC assay.Entities:
Keywords: RT-QuIC; chronic wasting disease (CWD); deer; diagnostics; immunohistochemistry; prions
Year: 2022 PMID: 35118153 PMCID: PMC8803730 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.824815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Location and number of lymph nodes tested in this study.
Number of positive, negative, not available (N/A), and total of RLNs tested by each assay.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 184 | 1,116 | 0 | 1,300 |
|
| 178 | 1,122 | 0 | 1,300 |
|
| 176 | 195 | 1 | 372 |
IHC was performed in all RT-QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples, except for one sample that we did not have enough tissue to be analyzed by IHC (N/A = 1), and 188 randomly selected negative RLNs. N/A, not available material to be analyzed;
IHC was performed in RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and in 188 randomly selected negative samples.
Figure 2CWD detection in WTD RLN by IHC. Sections of examined lymph node included at least six follicles to allow for a diagnosis of negative in nodes without IHC labeling. Tissues were classified as positive if they had characteristic bright red, granular immunolabeling in the follicular centers. (A) IHC staining of a CWD negative RLN, at 10X magnification. (B) IHC staining of a positive RLN at 10X magnification.
Samples with discordant results between ELISA, IHC, and RT-QuIC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 454295 | M | 1.5 | Clinton | 0.513 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 582500 | F | 1 | Macomb | 0.167 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 583708 | F | 0 | Mecosta | 0.644 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 576488 | F | 4 | Macomb | 0.211 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 685995 | F | 2 | Washtenaw | 0.261 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 521225 | M | 1 | Clinton | 0.065 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 575795 | M | 1 | Macomb | 3.328 | Positive | Negative | Positive |
ELISA positive, sample with average value > 0.035 plus the average of the negative control. IHC was performed at the MSU-VDL and NVSL and a sample was considered IHC positive if a positive result was reported by at least one of those laboratories. RT-QuIC threshold was calculated by the average fluorescence of the ten first readings plus 10 standard deviations. A sample was considered RT-QuIC positive when at least half of the total replicates surpassed the threshold. Yo, years old; OD, optical density.
Figure 3Amount and location of positive samples in Michigan. Map shows the total number of RLN samples tested in each County. Gray represents the Counties with CWD positive results. The table shows the number of positive samples/number of samples tested by County and by each technique used. RT-QuIC and ELISA were performed in 1,300 WTD RLNs. IHC was performed in all RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and in 188 randomly selected negative samples.
Positive PrPCWD RLNs by sex.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Female | 80 | 81 (9.9%) | 85 (10.4%) | 154 | 819 | 819 |
| Male | 95 | 96 (20.4%) | 98 (20.8%) | 216 | 470 | 470 |
| Unknown | 1 | 1 (9.1%) | 1 (9.1%) | 2 | 11 | 11 |
| Total | 176 | 178 (13.7) | 184 (14.1%) | 372 | 1,300 | 1,300 |
The table presents the total and percentage of positive RLNs and the total of samples tested by sex and assay performed. It is important to note that the percentage of positive samples by sex was not calculated for IHC since only RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and 188 randomly selected RLNs were tested by this assay.
Percentage of positive samples by sex was not calculated for IHC since the assay was only performed in RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and 188 randomly selected negative samples.
Positive PrPCWD RLNs by age category.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 to 1 | 38 | 40 (8.0%) | 43 (8.6%) | 118 | 501 | 501 |
| > 1 to 2 | 68 | 68 (20.1%) | 70 (20.6%) | 125 | 339 | 339 |
| > 2 to 3 | 37 | 37 (16.4%) | 37 (16.4%) | 73 | 225 | 225 |
| > 3 to 4 | 26 | 26 (21.7%) | 27 (22.5%) | 38 | 120 | 120 |
| > 4 to 5 | 4 | 4 (7.0%) | 4 (7.0%) | 9 | 57 | 57 |
| > 5 | 3 | 3 (5.8%) | 3 (5.8%) | 6 | 52 | 52 |
| Unknown | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Total | 176 | 178 (13.7%) | 184 (14.1%) | 372 | 1,300 | 1,300 |
The table presents the total and percentage of positive RLNs and the total of samples tested by age category and assay performed. Age classes were determined based on tooth wear by experienced staff at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Disease Laboratory. It is important to note that the percentage of positive samples by age category was not calculated for IHC since only RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and 188 randomly selected negative RLNs were tested by this assay.
Percentage of positive samples by age category was not calculated for IHC since the assay was only performed in RT/QuIC-positive and ELISA-positive samples (n = 184) and 188 randomly selected negative samples.
PrPCWD detection on RLNs, prescapular lymph nodes, prefemoral lymph nodes, and popliteal lymph nodes of WTD by ELISA, IHC, and RT-QuIC.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 702671 | M | 1.5 | Jackson | 3.08 | positive | positive | positive | 10.31 | 1.275 | positive | positive | positive | 18.12 | N/A | N/A | positive | positive | 8.87 | 0.696 | positive | positive | positive | 15.4 |
| 702880 | F | 0 | Jackson | 4.14 | positive | positive | positive | 8.12 | 3.555 | positive | positive | positive | 8.73 | 4.118 | positive | positive | positive | 7.23 | 3.914 | positive | positive | positive | 7.93 |
| 675730 | F | 4 | Jackson | 2.24 | positive | positive | positive | 7.56 | 2.502 | positive | positive | positive | 6.13 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2.29 | positive | positive | positive | 8.07 |
| 674269 | F | 2 | Jackson | 2.94 | positive | positive | positive | 6.01 | 4.105 | positive | positive | positive | 7.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | positive | positive | 6.84 |
| 674291 | F | 5 | Jackson | 3.48 | positive | positive | positive | 6.56 | 4.125 | positive | positive | positive | 6.04 | 4.044 | positive | positive | positive | 6.71 | 4.154 | positive | positive | positive | 5.83 |
| 674292 | F | 0 | Jackson | 0.24 | positive | positive | positive | 7.03 | 0.227 | positive | positive | positive | 6.3 | 0.008 | negative | positive | positive | 11.68 | 0.01 | negative | positive | positive | 17.56 |
| 674780 | F | 3 | Jackson | 3.782 | positive | positive | positive | 9.13 | 1.766 | positive | positive | positive | 11.3 | 3.368 | positive | positive | positive | 11.15 | 4.079 | positive | positive | positive | 10.65 |
| 420830 | F | 12 | Hillsdale | 0.011 | negative | negative | negative | N/A | 0.007 | negative | negative | negative | N/A | 0.01 | negative | negative | negative | N/A | 0.01 | negative | negative | negative | N/A |
ELISA positive, sample with average value > 0.035 plus the average of the negative control. RT-QuIC threshold was calculated by the average fluorescence of the ten first readings plus 10 standard deviations. The time to threshold was defined as the time at which a sample fluorescence emission crossed the cycle threshold. A sample was considered RT-QuIC positive when at least half of the total replicates surpassed the threshold. N/A, not available.