犊牛粪便中a型轮状病毒诊断检测方法的比较

IF 0.4 Q4 VETERINARY SCIENCES Macedonian Veterinary Review Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0033
S. Barua, S. Islam, А.М.А.М. Zonaed Siddiki, M. Masuduzzaman, M. A. Hossain, S. Chowdhury
{"title":"犊牛粪便中a型轮状病毒诊断检测方法的比较","authors":"S. Barua, S. Islam, А.М.А.М. Zonaed Siddiki, M. Masuduzzaman, M. A. Hossain, S. Chowdhury","doi":"10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bovine rotavirus A (BRVA) is a frequent causative agent of diarrhea in neonatal calves. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is crucial to prevent calf mortality from BRVA induced diarrhea. Currently, variety of diagnostic methods are being used to detect BRVA from calves’ feces: antibody-based rapid test and ELISA, and molecular-based RT-PCR and RT-qPCR. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the rapid test (Immunochromatography), ELISA, and RT-PCR assays, using RT-qPCR as the gold standard, in detection of BRVA in diarrheic calves’ fecal samples. One hundred (n=100) clinically diarrheic fecal samples were tested with four different diagnostic tools. The percent of samples positive by rapid test, ELISA, RT-PCR and RT-qPCR was 10%, 16%, 17%, and 33%, respectively. The agreement between different assays was 75% to 99%. The highest agreement was observed between ELISA and RT-PCR assay (99%). The lowest agreement was recorded (75%) between rapid test and RT-qPCR. The sensitivity of the rapid test, ELISA, and RT-PCR were 30%, 49%, and 52%, respectively when compared to the reference test (RT-qPCR), whereas specificity was 100% for all assays. In conclusion, none of the frequently used diagnostic tests showed a satisfactory level of sensitivity to identify BRVA in calves’ feces. Therefore, the use of a more sensitive rapid test should be used to identify infected calves in field conditions in order to prevent calf mortality from rotaviral diarrhea.","PeriodicalId":18099,"journal":{"name":"Macedonian Veterinary Review","volume":"44 1","pages":"37 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Bovine Rotavirus a in Calf Feces\",\"authors\":\"S. Barua, S. Islam, А.М.А.М. Zonaed Siddiki, M. Masuduzzaman, M. A. Hossain, S. Chowdhury\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Bovine rotavirus A (BRVA) is a frequent causative agent of diarrhea in neonatal calves. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is crucial to prevent calf mortality from BRVA induced diarrhea. Currently, variety of diagnostic methods are being used to detect BRVA from calves’ feces: antibody-based rapid test and ELISA, and molecular-based RT-PCR and RT-qPCR. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the rapid test (Immunochromatography), ELISA, and RT-PCR assays, using RT-qPCR as the gold standard, in detection of BRVA in diarrheic calves’ fecal samples. One hundred (n=100) clinically diarrheic fecal samples were tested with four different diagnostic tools. The percent of samples positive by rapid test, ELISA, RT-PCR and RT-qPCR was 10%, 16%, 17%, and 33%, respectively. The agreement between different assays was 75% to 99%. The highest agreement was observed between ELISA and RT-PCR assay (99%). The lowest agreement was recorded (75%) between rapid test and RT-qPCR. The sensitivity of the rapid test, ELISA, and RT-PCR were 30%, 49%, and 52%, respectively when compared to the reference test (RT-qPCR), whereas specificity was 100% for all assays. In conclusion, none of the frequently used diagnostic tests showed a satisfactory level of sensitivity to identify BRVA in calves’ feces. Therefore, the use of a more sensitive rapid test should be used to identify infected calves in field conditions in order to prevent calf mortality from rotaviral diarrhea.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Macedonian Veterinary Review\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"37 - 45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Macedonian Veterinary Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Macedonian Veterinary Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

牛轮状病毒A (BRVA)是一种常见的导致新生儿小牛腹泻的病原体。准确和快速的诊断对于防止BRVA引起的腹泻导致小牛死亡至关重要。目前,用于犊牛粪便BRVA检测的诊断方法多种多样:基于抗体的快速检测和ELISA,以及基于分子的RT-PCR和RT-qPCR。本研究的目的是以RT-qPCR为金标准,评价快速检测(免疫层析)、ELISA和RT-PCR检测腹泻犊牛粪便中BRVA的准确性(敏感性和特异性)。使用四种不同的诊断工具对100例临床腹泻粪便样本进行检测。快速检测、ELISA、RT-PCR和RT-qPCR的阳性率分别为10%、16%、17%和33%。不同测定法之间的一致性为75% ~ 99%。ELISA和RT-PCR检测结果一致性最高(99%)。快速检测和RT-qPCR之间的一致性最低(75%)。与参考检测(RT-qPCR)相比,快速检测、ELISA和RT-PCR的敏感性分别为30%、49%和52%,而所有检测的特异性均为100%。总之,没有一种常用的诊断测试显示出令人满意的敏感性,以识别小牛粪便中的BRVA。因此,应使用更灵敏的快速试验在野外条件下识别受感染的小牛,以防止小牛死于轮状病毒腹泻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Diagnostic Tests for Detection of Bovine Rotavirus a in Calf Feces
Abstract Bovine rotavirus A (BRVA) is a frequent causative agent of diarrhea in neonatal calves. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is crucial to prevent calf mortality from BRVA induced diarrhea. Currently, variety of diagnostic methods are being used to detect BRVA from calves’ feces: antibody-based rapid test and ELISA, and molecular-based RT-PCR and RT-qPCR. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the rapid test (Immunochromatography), ELISA, and RT-PCR assays, using RT-qPCR as the gold standard, in detection of BRVA in diarrheic calves’ fecal samples. One hundred (n=100) clinically diarrheic fecal samples were tested with four different diagnostic tools. The percent of samples positive by rapid test, ELISA, RT-PCR and RT-qPCR was 10%, 16%, 17%, and 33%, respectively. The agreement between different assays was 75% to 99%. The highest agreement was observed between ELISA and RT-PCR assay (99%). The lowest agreement was recorded (75%) between rapid test and RT-qPCR. The sensitivity of the rapid test, ELISA, and RT-PCR were 30%, 49%, and 52%, respectively when compared to the reference test (RT-qPCR), whereas specificity was 100% for all assays. In conclusion, none of the frequently used diagnostic tests showed a satisfactory level of sensitivity to identify BRVA in calves’ feces. Therefore, the use of a more sensitive rapid test should be used to identify infected calves in field conditions in order to prevent calf mortality from rotaviral diarrhea.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Macedonian Veterinary Review
Macedonian Veterinary Review Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Bifidobacterium animalis Subsp. Lactis and Vitamin D on Immunological Response Following Vaccination in Puppies First Report of Bartonella Henselae Infection in a Cat in North Macedonia Determination of the Expression of Bone Morphogen Protein 15 and its Receptors in Laying Hens’ Ovary Effect of Seminal Plasma Protein Fractions on Cooled Dog Semen Kinetics Immunohistochemical Diagnostic Characteristics of Parvovirus Infection in Dogs
×
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