4.5 Article

Sensitivity and specificity of serological tests, histopathology and immunohistochemistry for detection of Toxoplasma gondii infection in domestic chickens

Journal

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
Volume 204, Issue 3-4, Pages 346-351

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.05.039

Keywords

Diagnosis; Toxoplasma gondii; Chickens; Serology; Histopathology; Immunohistochemistry

Funding

  1. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) [APQ1 E-26/110.937/2009, APQ1 E-26/111.977/2012, TCT E-26/102.303/2011]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [MCT/CNPq 10/2010-AT-NM]
  3. CNPq
  4. FAPERJ [JCNE E-26/102.247/2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since free-range chickens are important for the epidemiology of toxoplasmosis, this study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of different laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii in these animals. Serum samples from 135 adult domestic chickens were tested for anti-T. gondii antibodies by the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), modified agglutination test (MAT), and indirect hemagglutination test (IHAT). Tissue samples from all animals were analyzed by histopathology, immunohistochemistry and mouse bioassay (gold standard). Fifty-four chickens were positive for T. gondii in the bioassay. The sensitivity and specificity of the different tests were, respectively, 85% and 56% for ELISA; 80% and 52% for IFAT; 76% and 68% for MAT; 61% and 80% for IHAT; 7% and 98% for immunohistochemistry, and 6% and 98% for histopathology. The MAT was the most effective method for the diagnosis of T. gondii infection in chickens, followed by ELISA. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry are useful tools for the diagnosis of T. gondii infection in chickens due to their specificity. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available