3.9 Article

Use of oral fluids to detect anti-Lawsonia intracellularis antibodies in experimentally infected pigs

期刊

PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
卷 40, 期 12, 页码 970-976

出版社

REVISTA PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1678-5150-PVB-6679

关键词

Oral fluid; Lawsonia intracellularis; antibody; pigs; diagnostic; enteric disease; porcine proliferative enteropathy; serology; swine

资金

  1. Pro de Reitoria de Pesquisa of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (PRPq-UFMG)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (Fapemig)
  5. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several pathogens and antibodies derived from serum or produced in tissues associated with the oral cavity are present in the oral fluid (OF). Considering the applicability of this alternative sample, recent studies in veterinary medicine have tested OF as a replacement for serum in diagnostic assays. The aim of this study was to standardize the immunoperoxidase monolayer assay (IPMA) to detect anti-Lawsonia intracellularis immunoglobulin A (IgA) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) in OF samples from experimentally infected pigs. Sixty-two pigs were divided into two groups: control (T1, n=30) and inoculated with L. intracellularis (T2, n=32). Blood, OF and fecal samples were collected at 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 42 days post-inoculation (dpi). Some adaptations of the standard technique for serum were made to IPMA for the detection of IgA and IgG in OF. The IPMA showed high specificity and sensitivity for serum samples and high specificity and moderate sensitivity for the detection of IgA and IgG in OF. There was high agreement between the results of serum IgG and OF IgA and IgG. Based on our results, oral fluid samples may be used for the evaluation and determination of anti-L. intracellularis antibodies in pigs, but not for individual diagnosis of swine proliferative enteropathy.

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

3.9
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