Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10532/4712
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGusi, Amahyel M.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorBertu, Wilson J.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorMiguel López, María Jesús dees_ES
dc.contributor.authorDieste Pérez, Lucíaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorSmits, Henk L.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorOcholi, Reuben A.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorBlasco Martínez, José Maríaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorMoriyón Uria, Ignacioes_ES
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz Alvaro, Pilar Maríaes_ES
dc.coverage.spatialProducción y sanidad animales_ES
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-04T12:36:30Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-04T12:36:30Z-
dc.date.issued2019es_ES
dc.identifier.citationPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Vol. 13, n. 6, (2019)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10532/4712-
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.en
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.relation.urihttps://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509es_ES
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/*
dc.titleComparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosisen
dc.typeJournal Contribution*
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume13(6)es_ES
dc.subject.agrovocBrucelosises
dc.subject.agrovocControl de enfermedadeses
dc.subject.agrovocDiagnósticoes
dc.description.statusPublishedes_ES
dc.type.refereedRefereedes_ES
dc.type.specifiedArticlees_ES
dc.bibliographicCitation.titlePLOS Neglected Tropical Diseasesen
dc.relation.doi10.1371/journal.pntd.0007509es_ES
Appears in Collections:[DOCIART] Artículos científicos, técnicos y divulgativos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2019_242.pdf302,47 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

La información de este repositorio es indexada en: