4.1 Article

Antibodies to whole-cell or recombinant antigens of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Babesia microti in white-footed mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 732-738

出版社

WILDLIFE DISEASE ASSN, INC
DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-42.4.732

关键词

Anaplasma phagocytophilum; antibodies; Babesia microti; Borrelia burgdorferi; ELISA; Peromyscus leucopus

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HR8/CCH113382-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [U5O/CCU111188-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serum samples were obtained from white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in tick-infested areas of Connecticut during the period 2001 through 2003 and analyzed for antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Babesia microti. Emphasis was placed on the evaluations of highly specific recombinant VlsE or protein (p) 44 antigens of B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum, respectively, in a newly developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as testing sera with whole-cell antigens by conventional ELISA or indirect fluorescent antibody staining methods. Of the 414 arouse sera analyzed, 310 (75%) had antibodies to whole-cell B. burgdorferi, whereas 157 (38%) were positive to the VlsE antigen. The latter nearly equaled the overall antibody prevalence rate (37%) computed when sera were tested separately with the p44 antigen. Mice were exposed to these pathogens and B. microti (antibody prevalence = 25%) in extreme northern Connecticut as well as the southern coastal areas of the state, thus indicating further geographic expansion of these infections. Fifty-three (13%) sera from widely separated sites had antibodies to all three pathogens. With expression and immunological recognition of VlsE and p44 antigens in P. leucopus, separate incorporation of these fusion proteins in an ELISA was very helpful in confirming past or current infections and in identifying specific foci for B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytaphilum..

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

4.1
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