{"title":"实验室ELISA和快速ELISA检测犬埃利希体和无原体抗体的性能","authors":"K. Gospodinova, K. Koev, V. Petrov","doi":"10.15547/bjvm.2439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two diagnostic approaches for the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia canis (E. canis) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (A. phagocytophylum). Two types of tests were used. Anti-E. canis ELISA Dog (IgG) and Anti-A. phagocytophilum ELISA Dog (IgG) are ELISA kits for the detection of relevant antibodies in laboratory conditions, and SNAP® 4Dx Plus is a pet-side ELISA-based serological screening test for simultaneous detection of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum/A. platys, E. canis/E. ewingii, B. burgdorferi and Dirofilaria immitis antigens. A total of 61 blood samples obtained from dogs with clinical signs and haematological changes suspect for granulocytic anaplasmosis or monocytic ehrlichiosis were analysed. Antibodies against E. canis were found out in 29 (47.54%) and A. phagocytophilum in 7 (11.48%) of the samples tested by laboratory ELISA. When using the SNAP test, the results were 35 (57.38%) and 11 (18.03%), respectively. Using the laboratory ELISA kit, 18 samples (29.50%) were positive for antibodies against both pathogens vs 9 (14.75%) samples tested by SNAP. The comparison of the two tests showed a greater agreement of the results in the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia spp. (52 samples) than against Anaplasma spp. (44 samples). This difference was attributed to possible cross-reactions","PeriodicalId":9279,"journal":{"name":"BULGARIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of laboratory ELISA and rapid ELISA tests for Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. antibody detection in dogs\",\"authors\":\"K. Gospodinova, K. Koev, V. Petrov\",\"doi\":\"10.15547/bjvm.2439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two diagnostic approaches for the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia canis (E. canis) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (A. phagocytophylum). Two types of tests were used. Anti-E. canis ELISA Dog (IgG) and Anti-A. phagocytophilum ELISA Dog (IgG) are ELISA kits for the detection of relevant antibodies in laboratory conditions, and SNAP® 4Dx Plus is a pet-side ELISA-based serological screening test for simultaneous detection of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum/A. platys, E. canis/E. ewingii, B. burgdorferi and Dirofilaria immitis antigens. A total of 61 blood samples obtained from dogs with clinical signs and haematological changes suspect for granulocytic anaplasmosis or monocytic ehrlichiosis were analysed. Antibodies against E. canis were found out in 29 (47.54%) and A. phagocytophilum in 7 (11.48%) of the samples tested by laboratory ELISA. When using the SNAP test, the results were 35 (57.38%) and 11 (18.03%), respectively. Using the laboratory ELISA kit, 18 samples (29.50%) were positive for antibodies against both pathogens vs 9 (14.75%) samples tested by SNAP. The comparison of the two tests showed a greater agreement of the results in the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia spp. (52 samples) than against Anaplasma spp. (44 samples). This difference was attributed to possible cross-reactions\",\"PeriodicalId\":9279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BULGARIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BULGARIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15547/bjvm.2439\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Veterinary\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BULGARIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15547/bjvm.2439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Veterinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究的目的是比较两种诊断方法检测犬埃利希体和嗜吞噬细胞无原体抗体的性能。使用了两种类型的测试。Anti-E。犬IgG和Anti-A ELISA试剂盒。phagocytophilum ELISA Dog (IgG)是在实验室条件下检测相关抗体的ELISA试剂盒，SNAP®4Dx Plus是一种基于宠物侧ELISA的血清学筛选试验，用于同时检测抗a . phagocytophilum/ a的抗体。普拉迪斯，e.c canis/E。ewingii, B. burgdorferi和Dirofilaria imimtis抗原。对61份疑似粒细胞无形体病或单核细胞埃利希体病临床症状和血液学变化的狗的血样进行了分析。实验室酶联免疫吸附试验结果显示，29例(47.54%)标本中检出犬单胞杆菌抗体，7例(11.48%)标本中检出嗜吞噬细胞单胞杆菌抗体。采用SNAP试验时，结果分别为35例(57.38%)和11例(18.03%)。使用实验室ELISA试剂盒，18份(29.50%)样品对两种病原体的抗体均呈阳性，而SNAP检测的样品为9份(14.75%)。两种检测方法的比较表明，检测埃利希氏体(52个样本)抗体的结果与检测无原体(44个样本)抗体的结果更为一致。这种差异归因于可能的交叉反应
Performance of laboratory ELISA and rapid ELISA tests for Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. antibody detection in dogs
The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two diagnostic approaches for the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia canis (E. canis) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (A. phagocytophylum). Two types of tests were used. Anti-E. canis ELISA Dog (IgG) and Anti-A. phagocytophilum ELISA Dog (IgG) are ELISA kits for the detection of relevant antibodies in laboratory conditions, and SNAP® 4Dx Plus is a pet-side ELISA-based serological screening test for simultaneous detection of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum/A. platys, E. canis/E. ewingii, B. burgdorferi and Dirofilaria immitis antigens. A total of 61 blood samples obtained from dogs with clinical signs and haematological changes suspect for granulocytic anaplasmosis or monocytic ehrlichiosis were analysed. Antibodies against E. canis were found out in 29 (47.54%) and A. phagocytophilum in 7 (11.48%) of the samples tested by laboratory ELISA. When using the SNAP test, the results were 35 (57.38%) and 11 (18.03%), respectively. Using the laboratory ELISA kit, 18 samples (29.50%) were positive for antibodies against both pathogens vs 9 (14.75%) samples tested by SNAP. The comparison of the two tests showed a greater agreement of the results in the detection of antibodies against Ehrlichia spp. (52 samples) than against Anaplasma spp. (44 samples). This difference was attributed to possible cross-reactions
期刊介绍：
BJVM is a no-fee open-access scientific quarterly journal which covers topics related to both fundamental and applied aspects of veterinary medicine and to closely connected subjects with it. The journal publishes original papers, short communications and reviews.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
