Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three in-house diagnostic tests, i.e. counter current immunoelectrophoresis (CCIE), intradermal (ID) and indirect fluorescent immunoassay (IFI), for the diagnosis of Heterophyes infection. One hundred and twenty puppies were randomly divided in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Veterinary parasitology 2008-02, Vol.151 (2), p.196-202
Hauptverfasser: Elshazly, Attef M., Elsheikha, Hany M., Rahbar, Mohammad H., Awad, Soha I.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 202
container_issue 2
container_start_page 196
container_title Veterinary parasitology
container_volume 151
creator Elshazly, Attef M.
Elsheikha, Hany M.
Rahbar, Mohammad H.
Awad, Soha I.
description The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three in-house diagnostic tests, i.e. counter current immunoelectrophoresis (CCIE), intradermal (ID) and indirect fluorescent immunoassay (IFI), for the diagnosis of Heterophyes infection. One hundred and twenty puppies were randomly divided into eight groups ( n = 15/group). Heterophyes heterophyes infections were established in these puppies by administering a dose of 50 H. heterophyes encysted metacercariae/puppy by gavage. Forty puppies of similar age and sex were divided into eight groups, of five puppies each and were used as negative controls. Sera pooled from separate infected and uninfected groups were tested against H. heterophyes antigens, weekly for 8 weeks post-infection (PI). The ID assay detected infected puppies sooner than any of the serological tests. Sero-conversion was first detected 2 weeks PI by ID assay and 1 week later by CCIE and IFI assays. ID test performed well till the end of the experiment (sensitivity and specificity: 100% and 90%, respectively). Both IFI and CCIE assays had a sensitivity of 40% and 20%, respectively for early detection of antibody, which was less sensitive than ID but both assays were more specific (100%) than the ID assay. The lowest agreement was between ID and IFI tests (40.3%), whilst the highest was observed between CCIE and IFI tests (67.2%). Of the three evaluated methods, the ID test could be recommended for scientific and laboratory diagnosis of heterophyosis in naturally infected animals. However, since none of the investigated method are optimal (i.e, offers 100% specificity and sensitivity), the choice of test employed must depend on the aim of the study.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70226459</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0304401707005717</els_id><sourcerecordid>20945000</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-700b5a308f2a2924447771c7977a9c1a40b06ab5ef286404976a218515267dd93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9rGzEQxUVJaJyk36C0OuW2zkgrrXYvhWDypxDoIfFZyNpZW8a72kpyiL99ZNbQntrTDMNvHjPvEfKVwZwBq2638zdMowlzDqDyaA6cfSIzVquy4FLCGZlBCaIQwNQFuYxxCwACKvWZXLAaVAOVnBFc-D6LuOgH6juaNgGRur7fD751Zj34mJylCWOKtPOB4vuIwfU4JLOjT5gw-HFzwEg3f_Vu6NAmlyXdQFu_jtfkvDO7iF9O9YosH-5fF0_F86_Hn4u758IKJlOhAFbSlFB33PCGCyGUUsyqRinTWGYErKAyK4kdrysBolGV4ayWTPJKtW1TXpGbSXcM_vc-H617Fy3udmZAv49aAeeVkP8HOTRCZr8yKCbQBh9jwE6P-X0TDpqBPuagt3rKQR9zOE5zDnnt20l_v-qx_bN0Mj4D3yegM16bdQ5AL184sDJLKs7rOhM_JgKzYW8Og47W4WCxdSG7q1vv_n3DBx7lpP0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20945000</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Elshazly, Attef M. ; Elsheikha, Hany M. ; Rahbar, Mohammad H. ; Awad, Soha I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Elshazly, Attef M. ; Elsheikha, Hany M. ; Rahbar, Mohammad H. ; Awad, Soha I.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three in-house diagnostic tests, i.e. counter current immunoelectrophoresis (CCIE), intradermal (ID) and indirect fluorescent immunoassay (IFI), for the diagnosis of Heterophyes infection. One hundred and twenty puppies were randomly divided into eight groups ( n = 15/group). Heterophyes heterophyes infections were established in these puppies by administering a dose of 50 H. heterophyes encysted metacercariae/puppy by gavage. Forty puppies of similar age and sex were divided into eight groups, of five puppies each and were used as negative controls. Sera pooled from separate infected and uninfected groups were tested against H. heterophyes antigens, weekly for 8 weeks post-infection (PI). The ID assay detected infected puppies sooner than any of the serological tests. Sero-conversion was first detected 2 weeks PI by ID assay and 1 week later by CCIE and IFI assays. ID test performed well till the end of the experiment (sensitivity and specificity: 100% and 90%, respectively). Both IFI and CCIE assays had a sensitivity of 40% and 20%, respectively for early detection of antibody, which was less sensitive than ID but both assays were more specific (100%) than the ID assay. The lowest agreement was between ID and IFI tests (40.3%), whilst the highest was observed between CCIE and IFI tests (67.2%). Of the three evaluated methods, the ID test could be recommended for scientific and laboratory diagnosis of heterophyosis in naturally infected animals. However, since none of the investigated method are optimal (i.e, offers 100% specificity and sensitivity), the choice of test employed must depend on the aim of the study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-4017</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2550</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18079065</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>accuracy ; Animals ; Antibodies, Helminth - blood ; Diagnosis ; diagnostic techniques ; disease diagnosis ; Dog Diseases - diagnosis ; Dogs ; Experimental ; Female ; flukes ; fluorescent antibody technique ; Heterophyes ; Heterophyes heterophyes ; Heterophyidae ; Heterophyidae - isolation &amp; purification ; Heterophyosis ; immunoelectrophoresis ; Immunologic Tests - methods ; Immunologic Tests - veterinary ; Male ; precision ; puppies ; Reproducibility of Results ; serodiagnosis ; Serology ; skin tests ; test sensitivity ; test specificity ; Time Factors ; trematode infections ; Trematode Infections - diagnosis ; Trematode Infections - veterinary</subject><ispartof>Veterinary parasitology, 2008-02, Vol.151 (2), p.196-202</ispartof><rights>2007 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-700b5a308f2a2924447771c7977a9c1a40b06ab5ef286404976a218515267dd93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-700b5a308f2a2924447771c7977a9c1a40b06ab5ef286404976a218515267dd93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.021$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18079065$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elshazly, Attef M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elsheikha, Hany M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahbar, Mohammad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Awad, Soha I.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs</title><title>Veterinary parasitology</title><addtitle>Vet Parasitol</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three in-house diagnostic tests, i.e. counter current immunoelectrophoresis (CCIE), intradermal (ID) and indirect fluorescent immunoassay (IFI), for the diagnosis of Heterophyes infection. One hundred and twenty puppies were randomly divided into eight groups ( n = 15/group). Heterophyes heterophyes infections were established in these puppies by administering a dose of 50 H. heterophyes encysted metacercariae/puppy by gavage. Forty puppies of similar age and sex were divided into eight groups, of five puppies each and were used as negative controls. Sera pooled from separate infected and uninfected groups were tested against H. heterophyes antigens, weekly for 8 weeks post-infection (PI). The ID assay detected infected puppies sooner than any of the serological tests. Sero-conversion was first detected 2 weeks PI by ID assay and 1 week later by CCIE and IFI assays. ID test performed well till the end of the experiment (sensitivity and specificity: 100% and 90%, respectively). Both IFI and CCIE assays had a sensitivity of 40% and 20%, respectively for early detection of antibody, which was less sensitive than ID but both assays were more specific (100%) than the ID assay. The lowest agreement was between ID and IFI tests (40.3%), whilst the highest was observed between CCIE and IFI tests (67.2%). Of the three evaluated methods, the ID test could be recommended for scientific and laboratory diagnosis of heterophyosis in naturally infected animals. However, since none of the investigated method are optimal (i.e, offers 100% specificity and sensitivity), the choice of test employed must depend on the aim of the study.</description><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antibodies, Helminth - blood</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>diagnostic techniques</subject><subject>disease diagnosis</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Experimental</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>flukes</subject><subject>fluorescent antibody technique</subject><subject>Heterophyes</subject><subject>Heterophyes heterophyes</subject><subject>Heterophyidae</subject><subject>Heterophyidae - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Heterophyosis</subject><subject>immunoelectrophoresis</subject><subject>Immunologic Tests - methods</subject><subject>Immunologic Tests - veterinary</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>precision</subject><subject>puppies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>serodiagnosis</subject><subject>Serology</subject><subject>skin tests</subject><subject>test sensitivity</subject><subject>test specificity</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>trematode infections</subject><subject>Trematode Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Trematode Infections - veterinary</subject><issn>0304-4017</issn><issn>1873-2550</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9rGzEQxUVJaJyk36C0OuW2zkgrrXYvhWDypxDoIfFZyNpZW8a72kpyiL99ZNbQntrTDMNvHjPvEfKVwZwBq2638zdMowlzDqDyaA6cfSIzVquy4FLCGZlBCaIQwNQFuYxxCwACKvWZXLAaVAOVnBFc-D6LuOgH6juaNgGRur7fD751Zj34mJylCWOKtPOB4vuIwfU4JLOjT5gw-HFzwEg3f_Vu6NAmlyXdQFu_jtfkvDO7iF9O9YosH-5fF0_F86_Hn4u758IKJlOhAFbSlFB33PCGCyGUUsyqRinTWGYErKAyK4kdrysBolGV4ayWTPJKtW1TXpGbSXcM_vc-H617Fy3udmZAv49aAeeVkP8HOTRCZr8yKCbQBh9jwE6P-X0TDpqBPuagt3rKQR9zOE5zDnnt20l_v-qx_bN0Mj4D3yegM16bdQ5AL184sDJLKs7rOhM_JgKzYW8Og47W4WCxdSG7q1vv_n3DBx7lpP0</recordid><startdate>20080214</startdate><enddate>20080214</enddate><creator>Elshazly, Attef M.</creator><creator>Elsheikha, Hany M.</creator><creator>Rahbar, Mohammad H.</creator><creator>Awad, Soha I.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080214</creationdate><title>Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs</title><author>Elshazly, Attef M. ; Elsheikha, Hany M. ; Rahbar, Mohammad H. ; Awad, Soha I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-700b5a308f2a2924447771c7977a9c1a40b06ab5ef286404976a218515267dd93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antibodies, Helminth - blood</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>diagnostic techniques</topic><topic>disease diagnosis</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Experimental</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>flukes</topic><topic>fluorescent antibody technique</topic><topic>Heterophyes</topic><topic>Heterophyes heterophyes</topic><topic>Heterophyidae</topic><topic>Heterophyidae - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Heterophyosis</topic><topic>immunoelectrophoresis</topic><topic>Immunologic Tests - methods</topic><topic>Immunologic Tests - veterinary</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>precision</topic><topic>puppies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>serodiagnosis</topic><topic>Serology</topic><topic>skin tests</topic><topic>test sensitivity</topic><topic>test specificity</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>trematode infections</topic><topic>Trematode Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Trematode Infections - veterinary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elshazly, Attef M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elsheikha, Hany M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahbar, Mohammad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Awad, Soha I.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary parasitology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elshazly, Attef M.</au><au>Elsheikha, Hany M.</au><au>Rahbar, Mohammad H.</au><au>Awad, Soha I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary parasitology</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Parasitol</addtitle><date>2008-02-14</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>151</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>196</spage><epage>202</epage><pages>196-202</pages><issn>0304-4017</issn><eissn>1873-2550</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of three in-house diagnostic tests, i.e. counter current immunoelectrophoresis (CCIE), intradermal (ID) and indirect fluorescent immunoassay (IFI), for the diagnosis of Heterophyes infection. One hundred and twenty puppies were randomly divided into eight groups ( n = 15/group). Heterophyes heterophyes infections were established in these puppies by administering a dose of 50 H. heterophyes encysted metacercariae/puppy by gavage. Forty puppies of similar age and sex were divided into eight groups, of five puppies each and were used as negative controls. Sera pooled from separate infected and uninfected groups were tested against H. heterophyes antigens, weekly for 8 weeks post-infection (PI). The ID assay detected infected puppies sooner than any of the serological tests. Sero-conversion was first detected 2 weeks PI by ID assay and 1 week later by CCIE and IFI assays. ID test performed well till the end of the experiment (sensitivity and specificity: 100% and 90%, respectively). Both IFI and CCIE assays had a sensitivity of 40% and 20%, respectively for early detection of antibody, which was less sensitive than ID but both assays were more specific (100%) than the ID assay. The lowest agreement was between ID and IFI tests (40.3%), whilst the highest was observed between CCIE and IFI tests (67.2%). Of the three evaluated methods, the ID test could be recommended for scientific and laboratory diagnosis of heterophyosis in naturally infected animals. However, since none of the investigated method are optimal (i.e, offers 100% specificity and sensitivity), the choice of test employed must depend on the aim of the study.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>18079065</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.021</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0304-4017
ispartof Veterinary parasitology, 2008-02, Vol.151 (2), p.196-202
issn 0304-4017
1873-2550
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70226459
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects accuracy
Animals
Antibodies, Helminth - blood
Diagnosis
diagnostic techniques
disease diagnosis
Dog Diseases - diagnosis
Dogs
Experimental
Female
flukes
fluorescent antibody technique
Heterophyes
Heterophyes heterophyes
Heterophyidae
Heterophyidae - isolation & purification
Heterophyosis
immunoelectrophoresis
Immunologic Tests - methods
Immunologic Tests - veterinary
Male
precision
puppies
Reproducibility of Results
serodiagnosis
Serology
skin tests
test sensitivity
test specificity
Time Factors
trematode infections
Trematode Infections - diagnosis
Trematode Infections - veterinary
title Comparison of three immunodiagnostic tests for experimental Heterophyes heterophyes infection in dogs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T14%3A17%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20three%20immunodiagnostic%20tests%20for%20experimental%20Heterophyes%20heterophyes%20infection%20in%20dogs&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20parasitology&rft.au=Elshazly,%20Attef%20M.&rft.date=2008-02-14&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=196&rft.epage=202&rft.pages=196-202&rft.issn=0304-4017&rft.eissn=1873-2550&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20945000%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20945000&rft_id=info:pmid/18079065&rft_els_id=S0304401707005717&rfr_iscdi=true