4.6 Article

Evaluation of a bovine cathelicidin ELISA for detecting mastitis in the dairy buffalo: Comparison with milk somatic cell count and bacteriological culture

Journal

RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 128, Issue -, Pages 129-134

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.11.009

Keywords

Subclinical mastitis; Water buffalo milk; Cathelicidin ELISA; Somatic cell count; Bacteriological culture

Funding

  1. Sardegna Ricerche, Science and Technology Park of Sardinia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A recently developed bovine cathelicidin (CATH) ELISA was evaluated in the dairy buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) by testing 618 quarter milk samples from a herd with subclinical mastitis cases. Somatic cell count (SCC) and bacteriological culture (BC) were carried out on the same samples for comparison. Out of 618 quarters, 258 (41.75%) were positive to CATH, 289 (46.76%) had SCC > 200,000 cells/mL, and 457 (73.95%) were positive to BC. The most prevalent microorganism was Staphylococcus aureus (SAU, 35.76% of all quarters), followed by non-aureus staphylococci (NAS, 22.17% of all quarters). Clinical mastitis quarters were only 7 (1.13%). CATH levels were significantly higher in clinical quarters and in high SCC, BC-positive quarters than in healthy, low SCC, BC-negative quarters. The highest median values were observed for SAU and the lowest for NAS. Differences among microorganism classes were generally more significant for SCC than for CATH. Test char acteristics of the CATH ELISA, evaluated by considering as true positives all BC-positive quarters with SCC > 200,000 cells/mL (N = 242), and as true negatives all sterile quarters with SCC < 200,000 cells/mL (N = 44), were as follows: sensitivity 57.85%, specificity 84.09%, positive predictive value 95.24%, negative predictive value 26.62%, accuracy 61.89%. Therefore, the bovine CATH ELISA showed a fair sensitivity and a good specificity in detecting water buffalo mastitis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available