Evaluation of commercial ELISA kits' diagnostic specificity for FAST diseases in wild animals.

IF 1.5 3区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.4102/ojvr.v91i1.2164
Vesna Milićević, Dimitrije Glišić, Ljubiša Veljović, Jovan Mirčeta, Branislav Kureljušić, Milutin Đorđević, Nikola Vasković
{"title":"Evaluation of commercial ELISA kits' diagnostic specificity for FAST diseases in wild animals.","authors":"Vesna Milićević, Dimitrije Glišić, Ljubiša Veljović, Jovan Mirčeta, Branislav Kureljušić, Milutin Đorđević, Nikola Vasković","doi":"10.4102/ojvr.v91i1.2164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Wild animals, sharing pathogens with domestic animals, play a crucial role in the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Sampling from wild animals poses significant challenges, yet it is vital for inclusion in disease surveillance and monitoring programmes. Often, mass surveillance involves serological screenings using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests, typically validated only for domestic animals. This study assessed the diagnostic specificity of commercially available ELISA tests on 342 wild ruminant serum samples and 100 from wild boars. We evaluated three tests for foot-and-mouth disease: two for Peste des petits ruminants, two for Rift Valley fever and one for Capripox virus. Diagnostic specificity was calculated using the formula True Negative/(False Positive + True Negative). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between tests. Results showed high specificity and agreement across all tests. Specificity for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) ranged from 93.89% for Prionics to 100% for IDEXX, with IDvet showing 99.6%. The highest agreement was between FMD IDvet and IDEXX at 97.1%. Rift Valley fever (RVF) tests, Ingezim and IDvet, achieved specificities of 100% and 98.83%, respectively. The optimal specificity was attained by retesting single reactors and inactivating the complement.Contribution: Commercially available ELISA kits are specific for foot-and-mouth disease and similar transboundary animal diseases and can be used for highly specific wild animal testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":54685,"journal":{"name":"Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v91i1.2164","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Wild animals, sharing pathogens with domestic animals, play a crucial role in the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Sampling from wild animals poses significant challenges, yet it is vital for inclusion in disease surveillance and monitoring programmes. Often, mass surveillance involves serological screenings using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests, typically validated only for domestic animals. This study assessed the diagnostic specificity of commercially available ELISA tests on 342 wild ruminant serum samples and 100 from wild boars. We evaluated three tests for foot-and-mouth disease: two for Peste des petits ruminants, two for Rift Valley fever and one for Capripox virus. Diagnostic specificity was calculated using the formula True Negative/(False Positive + True Negative). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between tests. Results showed high specificity and agreement across all tests. Specificity for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) ranged from 93.89% for Prionics to 100% for IDEXX, with IDvet showing 99.6%. The highest agreement was between FMD IDvet and IDEXX at 97.1%. Rift Valley fever (RVF) tests, Ingezim and IDvet, achieved specificities of 100% and 98.83%, respectively. The optimal specificity was attained by retesting single reactors and inactivating the complement.Contribution: Commercially available ELISA kits are specific for foot-and-mouth disease and similar transboundary animal diseases and can be used for highly specific wild animal testing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估商用酶联免疫吸附试剂盒对野生动物 FAST 疾病的诊断特异性。
野生动物与家养动物共享病原体,在传染病的流行病学中发挥着至关重要的作用。对野生动物进行采样是一项重大挑战,但对于将其纳入疾病监测和监控计划却至关重要。通常情况下,大规模监测涉及使用酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)进行血清学筛查,这种试验通常只对家养动物有效。本研究评估了市售酶联免疫吸附试验对 342 份野生反刍动物血清样本和 100 份野猪血清样本的诊断特异性。我们评估了三种口蹄疫检测方法:两种用于检测小反刍兽疫,两种用于检测裂谷热,一种用于检测痘病毒。诊断特异性的计算公式为真阴性/(假阳性+真阴性)。科恩卡帕系数(Cohen's kappa coefficient)用于衡量检测之间的一致性。结果显示,所有检测项目的特异性和一致性都很高。对口蹄疫(FMD)的特异性从 Prionics 的 93.89% 到 IDEXX 的 100% 不等,其中 IDvet 为 99.6%。口蹄疫 IDvet 与 IDEXX 的一致性最高,达到 97.1%。Ingezim和IDvet的裂谷热(RVF)检测特异性分别为100%和98.83%。通过重测单个反应物和灭活补体,可达到最佳特异性:贡献:市售酶联免疫吸附试剂盒对口蹄疫和类似的跨境动物疾病具有特异性,可用于高特异性野生动物检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, is the official publication of the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute. While it considers submissions from any geographic region, its focus is on Africa and the infectious and parasitic diseases and disease vectors that affect livestock and wildlife on the continent.
期刊最新文献
Factors associated with the rabies vaccination status of dogs in households in Beni City, D.R. Congo. Perceptions of ethnoveterinary medicine among animal healthcare practitioners in South Africa. Clinical Coxiella burnetii infection in sable and roan antelope in South Africa Evaluation of commercial ELISA kits' diagnostic specificity for FAST diseases in wild animals. An investigation into Toxoplasma gondii at the human-livestock-wildlife interface, South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1