4.2 Article

A comparative study of Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence in mink using a modified agglutination test, a Western blot, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1040638715596033

关键词

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; mink; modified agglutination test; Toxoplasma gondii; Western blot

资金

  1. Chinese National Nature Science Foundation
  2. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest in China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toxoplasma gondii can infect almost all warm-blooded animals, and many serological methods have been developed to detect T. gondii infection in a variety of animal species. In the present study, the seroprevalence of T. gondii infection in farmed mink in northeast China was determined using the modified agglutination test (MAT), a Western blot (WB), and 3 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) with protein A/G conjugate, using either of 2 recombinant dense granule antigens, GRA1 and GRA7, or Toxoplasma soluble antigens (TSA). There was no significant difference between the detection results of the GRA1-, GRA7-, and TSA-ELISAs and WB (McNemar chi-square, P > 0.05), but a significant difference was observed between MAT and WB (P < 0.05). A near perfect agreement (97.0%) was found between the GRA7-ELISA and WB ( = 0.83), and a substantial agreement (92.4-93.1%) was observed in the TSA- and GRA1-ELISAs ( = 0.68-0.73). The GRA7-ELISA showed the highest sensitivity and specificity, and the lowest false-positive and negative rates, while the MAT gave both a low sensitivity and frequent false positives in comparison to the WB. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the largest area under curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.96), and the highest relative sensitivity (72.7%) and specificity (99.0%) for a cutoff value of 0.19 in the GRA7-ELISA. These results indicate that the GRA7-ELISA is suitable for detection of T. gondii infection in mink and that MAT should be used with caution.

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