4.2 Article

Evaluation of crude hydatid cyst fluid antigens for the serological diagnosis of hydatidosis in cattle

期刊

JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 100-108

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X10000349

关键词

-

资金

  1. Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies and Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology Department of the Medical Faculty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Echinococcosis is a zoonotic infection caused by adult or larval (metacestode) stages of cestodes belonging to the genus Echinococcus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antigenic ability of hydatid cyst fluid antigen for the diagnosis of hydatidosis in cattle using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and indirect haemagglutination test (IHA). The source of the antigens for the serological tests was fertile crude cyst fluids collected from naturally infected sheep at the Addis Ababa abattoir. A total of 502 sera were collected from 329 uninfected cattle and 173 hydatid-infected cattle which were confirmed by post-mortem examination. Most cysts were sterile and multiple organ infection predominated. Of 173 infected cattle, 166 (96.0%; confidence interval (CI) 91.8-98.4) were positive using ELISA while 7 (4.0%) were negative. Of 329 sera from uninfected cattle, 274 (83.3%; CI 78.8-87.2) were found to be negative and the remaining 55 (16.7%) were positive by ELISA. Of 173 infected cattle, 151 (87.3%; CI 81.4-91.9) were positive and 22 (12.7%) were negative by IHA. Of 329 negative sera tested using IHA, 266 (80.9%; CI 76.2-85.0) were negative and the remaining 63 (19.1%) were positive. The false positive and negative values of ELISA were 4.0 and 16.7%, respectively, and the corresponding values of IT-TA were 12.7 and 19.1%. The sensitivity and diagnostic efficiency of IHA were 87.2 and 83.6%, respectively. Crude hydatid cyst fluid antigen seems to have reasonable antigenic properties and hence could be employed for epidemiological surveillance of cattle hydatidosis.

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

4.2
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