Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorGusi, A.M. (Amahyel M.)-
dc.creatorBertu, W.J. (Wilson J.)-
dc.creatorMiguel, M.J. (María Jesús) de-
dc.creatorDieste-Pérez, L. (Lucía)-
dc.creatorSmits, H.L. (Henk L.)-
dc.creatorOcholi, R.A. (Reuben A.)-
dc.creatorBlasco, J.M. (J. M.)-
dc.creatorMoriyon, I. (Ignacio)-
dc.creatorMuñoz, P. (Pilar)-
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-09T12:03:35Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-09T12:03:35Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationGusi, A.M. (Amahyel M.); Bertu, W.J. (Wilson J.); Miguel, M.J. (María Jesús) de; et al. "Comparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosis". PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 13 (6), 2019, e0007509es
dc.identifier.issn1935-2727-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10171/63628-
dc.description.abstractBackground Brucellosis is a world-wide extended zoonosis that causes a grave problem in developing economies. Animal vaccination and diagnosis are essential to control brucellosis, and the need for accurate but also simple and low-cost tests that can be implemented in low-infrastructure laboratories has been emphasized. Methodology We evaluated bovine, sheep, goat and swine lateral flow immunochromatography assay kits (LFA), the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a well-validated protein G indirect ELISA (iELISA) using sera of Brucella culture-positive and unvaccinated brucellosis free livestock. Sera from cattle vaccinated with S19 and RB51 brucellosis vaccines were also tested. Finally, we compared RBT and LFA using sera of white Fulani cattle of unknown bacteriological status from a brucellosis endemic area of Nigeria. Results and conclusions Although differences were not statistically significant, RBT showed the highest values for diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in cattle (LFA, 96.6/98.8; RBT, 98.9/100; and iELISA, 96.6/100) and the iELISA yielded highest values in sheep (LFA, 94.0/100; RBT, 92.0/100; iELISA, 100/100), goats (LFA, 95.7/96.2; RBT, 97.8/100; iELISA, 100/100) and pigs (LFA, 92.3/100; RBT, 92.3/100; iELISA, 100/100). Vaccine S19 administered subcutaneously interfered in all tests but conjunctival application minimized the problem. Although designed not to interfere in serodiagnosis, vaccine RB51 interfered in LFA and iELISA but not in the RBT. We found closely similar apparent prevalence results when testing the Nigerian Fulani cattle by RBT and LFA. Although both RBT and LFA (showing similar diagnostic performance) are suitable for small laboratories in resource-limited areas, RBT has the advantage that a single reagent is useful in all animal species. Considering these advantages, its low cost and that it is also useful for human brucellosis diagnosis, RBT might be a good choice for resource-limited laboratories.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThe research leading to these results was supported by MINECO (grant AGL2014-58795-C4- 1R and AGL2014-58795-C4-3R), Institute for Tropical Health funders (Obra Social la CAIXA, Fundaciones Caja Navarra and Roviralta, PROFAND, Ubesol, ACUNSA and Artai) and Aragón Government (Grupo de Investigación A13-17D). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)es_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.subjectBrucellosises_ES
dc.subjectZoonosises_ES
dc.subjectAnimal vaccinationes_ES
dc.subjectLow-cost testses_ES
dc.titleComparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosises_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.description.noteThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509-
dadun.citation.number6es_ES
dadun.citation.publicationNamePLOS Neglected Tropical Diseaseses_ES
dadun.citation.startingPagee0007509es_ES
dadun.citation.volume13es_ES

Files in This Item:
Thumbnail
File
file.pdf
Description
Size
555.67 kB
Format
Adobe PDF


Statistics and impact
0 citas en
0 citas en

Items in Dadun are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.