4.5 Article

Validation of a quantitative Eimeria spp. PCR for fresh droppings of broiler chickens

Journal

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 615-622

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2017.1337269

Keywords

PCR; chicken; fresh droppings; validation; Eimeria spp.

Funding

  1. Dutch Commodity Board for Poultry and Eggs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) for the seven chicken Eimeria spp. was modified and validated for direct use on fresh droppings. The analytical specificity of the qPCR on droppings was 100%. Its analytical sensitivity (non-sporulated oocysts/g droppings) was 41 for E. acervulina, <= 2900 for E. brunetti, 710 for E. praecox, 1500 for E. necatrix, 190 for E. tenella, 640 for E. maxima, and 1100 for E. mitis. Field validation of the qPCR was done using droppings with non-sporulated oocysts from 19 broiler flocks. To reduce the number of qPCR tests five grams of each pooled sample (consisting of ten fresh droppings) per time point were blended into one mixed sample. Comparison of the oocysts per gram (OPG)-counting method with the qPCR using pooled samples (n = 1180) yielded a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76-0.80) and a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.81) using mixed samples (n = 236). Comparison of the average of the OPG-counts of the five pooled samples with the mixed sample per time point (n = 236) showed a Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.95) for the OPG-counting method and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90) for the qPCR. This indicates that mixed samples are practically equivalent to the mean of five pooled samples. The good correlation between the OPG-counting method and the qPCR was further confirmed by the visual agreement between the total oocyst/g shedding patterns measured with both techniques in the 19 broiler flocks using the mixed samples.

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