4.7 Article

The Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNA in white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) and African elephants (Loxodonta africana)

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71568-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Harry Crossley Foundation
  2. South African government through the South African Medical Research Council
  3. National Research Foundation South African Research Chair Initiative [86949]
  4. Cepheid, Inc.
  5. American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Wild Animal Health Fund [S005651]
  6. National Geographic Society [NGS-61089C-19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study describes the novel use of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) DNA in samples from white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) and African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Culture negative respiratory sample matrices were spiked to determine if the Ultra could detect MTBC DNA in rhinoceros and elephant samples. Rhinoceros bronchial alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was found to have an inhibitory effect on the Ultra. In this study, the limit of detection (LOD) of M. tuberculosis H37Rv in all spiked animal samples were 2 CFU/ml compared to 15.6 CFU/ml for humans, while the LOD for M. bovis SB0121 was 30 CFU/ml compared to 143.4 CFU/ml for M. bovis BCG in humans. Screening was performed on stored tissue and respiratory samples from known MTBC-infected animals and MTBC DNA was detected in 92% of samples collected from six rhinoceros and two elephants. Conversely, 83% of culture-negative tissue and respiratory samples from uninfected animals tested negative on the Ultra. In conclusion, the Ultra assay appears to be a sensitive and rapid diagnostic test for the detection of MTBC DNA from tissue and respiratory samples collected from African elephants and rhinoceros. Furthermore, the Ultra assay could provide a new tool for the detection of MTBC in various sample types from other wildlife species.

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