4.7 Article

Development of a Skin Test for Bovine Tuberculosis for Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 3176-3181

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00420-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tuberculin skin test has been used for the diagnosis of bovine and human tuberculosis (TB) for over a hundred years. However, the specificity of the test is compromised by vaccination with the Mycobacterium bovis-derived vaccine strain bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG). Since current promising vaccines against bovine TB are based on heterologous prime-boost combinations that include BCG, there is a need for diagnostic tests for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). The application of antigens such as ESAT-6 and CFP-10 for DIVA has so far been realized largely through their application in the blood-based gamma interferon release assay. In the current study, we have reassessed the potential of such antigens as skin test reagents for DIVA in cattle. A cocktail of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex recombinant protein antigens ESAT-6, CFP-10, MPB70, and MPB83 elicited delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test responses in 78% of naturally infected tuberculin-positive cattle. Importantly, this cocktail induced no skin responses in BCG-vaccinated cattle despite them being sensitized for strong tuberculin responses. Further optimization of skin test antigen combinations identified that the inclusion of Rv3615c (Mb3645c) enhanced skin test sensitivity in naturally infected cattle without compromising specificity. In addition, we demonstrate for the first time the utility of synthetic peptides as promising skin test antigens for bovine TB for DIVA. Our data provide a promising basis for the future development of skin tests for DIVA with practical relevance for TB diagnosis in both veterinary and clinical settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据