These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic performance of serological tests for swine brucellosis in the presence of false positive serological reactions.
    Author: Dieste-Pérez L, Blasco JM, de Miguel MJ, Moriyón I, Muñoz PM.
    Journal: J Microbiol Methods; 2015 Apr; 111():57-63. PubMed ID: 25661496.
    Abstract:
    Swine brucellosis caused by Brucella suis biovar 2 is an emerging disease in Europe. Currently used diagnostic tests for swine brucellosis detect antibodies to the O-polysaccharide (O-PS) of Brucella smooth lipopolysaccharide (S-LPS) but their specificity is compromised by false-positive serological reactions (FPSRs) when bacteria carrying cross-reacting O-PS infect pigs. FPSRs occur throughout Europe, and the only tool available for a specific B. suis diagnosis is the intradermal test with Brucella protein extracts free of O-PS or S-LPS. Using sera of 162 sows naturally infected by B. suis biovar 2, 406 brucellosis-free sows, and 218 pigs of brucellosis-free farms affected by FPSR, we assessed the diagnostic performance of an indirect ELISA with rough LPS (thus devoid of O-PS) and of gel immunodiffusion, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, latex agglutination and indirect ELISA with O-PS free proteins in comparison with several S-LPS tests (Rose Bengal, complement fixation, gel immunodiffusion and indirect ELISA). When adjusted to 100% specificity, the sensitivity of the rough LPS ELISA was very low (30%), and adoption of other cut-offs resulted in poor specificity/sensitivity ratios. Although their specificity was 100%, the sensitivity of protein tests (ELISA, latex agglutination, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, and gel immunodiffusion) was only moderate (45, 58, 61 and 63%, respectively). Among S-LPS tests, gel immunodiffusion was the only test showing acceptable sensitivity/specificity (68 and 100%, respectively). Despite these shortcomings, and when the purpose is to screen out FPSR at herd level, gel immunodiffusion tests may offer a technically simple and practical alternative to intradermal testing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]