4.5 Article

Lateral flow dipstick antigen assay for human cystic echinococcosis

Journal

ACTA TROPICA
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages 171-176

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.11.018

Keywords

Cystic echinococcosis; Antigen detection; Lateral flow dipstick assay; Polyclonal antibodies; Echinococcus granulosus

Funding

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia [1001.PFARMASI.812153]
  2. Malaysian Ministry of Education through the Higher Institution Centre of Excellence Program (HICoE) [311/CIPPM/4401005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a neglected zoonotic disease with a worldwide distribution and is a major public health problem in some areas. Diagnosis of CE is mainly based on clinical symptoms, imaging and serological testing, however, improvement in serodiagnosis is still needed. This study was aimed at detecting circulating Echinococcus antigen in CE patients using a lateral flow dipstick (LFD) assay. Three types of hydatid antigens i.e. hydatid cyst fluid (HCF), native antigen B (nAgB) and recombinant antigen B (rAgB) were prepared and poly clonal rabbit antiserum was raised against each antigen. Purified IgG fractions were prepared and a portion was conjugated to gold nanoparticles. After a series of optimizations, a final antigen detection LFD assay was developed using a combination of anti-nAgB-IgG and gold-conjugated anti -HCF-IgG. Evaluation of the assay showed that 27 out of 35 (77%) serum samples from CE patients gave positive results. Meanwhile, the test showed a diagnostic specificity of 82% when tested with sera from 38 healthy individuals and 13 patients with other parasitic diseases. In conclusion, the antigen detection LFD assay seemed to be useful for diagnosis of CE and possibly for post-treatment follow-up, and merit further evaluation studies. We foresee that it may improve serodiagnosis of CE when used in tandem with an antibody detection test.

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