Comparison of fluorescence polarization assay, indirect ELISA and competitive ELISA methods for diagnosis of Brucella melitensis-infection in small ruminants
Comparison of fluorescence polarization assay, indirect ELISA and competitive ELISA methods for diagnosis of Brucella melitensis-infection in small ruminants
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.12.001
复制
发表时间：
2004-09-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Fthenakis, GC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burriel, AR;Christodoulopoulos, G;Fthenakis, GC
对荧光偏振法（FPA）、间接ELISA（iELISA）和竞争ELISA（cELISA）3种血清学方法检测454份羊血清中羊种布鲁氏菌抗体的结果进行了比较（71只来自流产动物，228只来自过去2年未报告流产的动物，155份样本来自接种REV-1疫苗的动物）和251份血清样本来自山羊（零星流产和接种状态未知的动物）。FPA、iELISA和cELISA的敏感性分别为85%、93.5%和88.5%，特异性分别为96%、94.5%和98.5%。三种方法之间的协议是63.5%，当测试样品流产的情况下，92%时，测试样品从表面健康的羊和84%时，测试样品从接种疫苗的羊。当真实感染的可能性降低时，三种方法之间的一致性增加;当样本可能来自无布鲁氏菌动物时，一致性更高。看来iELISA在控制程序的早期阶段是有价值的，而cELISA在其最后阶段。FPA似乎不如其他两种测试准确，但它更容易，更便宜，更快地执行。(C)2003 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
Three serological tests, the fluorescence-polarization assay (FPA), the indirect ELISA (iELISA) and the competitive ELISA (cELISA), were compared in detecting Brucella melitensis antibodies in 454 serum samples from sheep (71 from animals which had aborted, 228 from animals without a reported abortion for the last 2 years, 155 samples from animals vaccinated with the REV-1 vaccine) and 251 serum samples from goats (animals with sporadic abortions and of unknown vaccination-status). The sensitivity of the three tests was 85, 93.5 and 88.5% and their specificity 96, 94.5 and 98.5%, for the FPA, iELISA and cELISA, respectively. The agreement between the three methods was 63.5% when testing samples from abortion cases, 92% when testing samples from apparently healthy sheep and 84% when testing samples from vaccinated sheep. Agreement between the three methods increased, when the possibility of true infection decreased; it was higher when the samples were likely to be from brucella-free animals. It appears that iELISA would be valuable for use at the early stage of a control program, whilst cELISA at its final stage. The FPA did not appear to be as accurate as the other two tests, but it was the easier, cheaper and quicker to perform. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.