Cargando…

Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)

BACKGROUND: Trichinella spp. infections in wild boar (Sus scrofa), one of the main sources of human trichinellosis, continue to represent a public health problem. The detection of Trichinella spp. larvae in muscles of wild boar by digestion can prevent the occurrence of clinical trichinellosis in hu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles, Ludovisi, Alessandra, Amati, Marco, Bandino, Ennio, Capelli, Gioia, Corrias, Franco, Gelmini, Luca, Nardi, Alberigo, Sacchi, Cristina, Cherchi, Simona, Lalle, Marco, Pozio, Edoardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3995759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24708795
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-171
_version_ 1782312930325299200
author Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles
Ludovisi, Alessandra
Amati, Marco
Bandino, Ennio
Capelli, Gioia
Corrias, Franco
Gelmini, Luca
Nardi, Alberigo
Sacchi, Cristina
Cherchi, Simona
Lalle, Marco
Pozio, Edoardo
author_facet Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles
Ludovisi, Alessandra
Amati, Marco
Bandino, Ennio
Capelli, Gioia
Corrias, Franco
Gelmini, Luca
Nardi, Alberigo
Sacchi, Cristina
Cherchi, Simona
Lalle, Marco
Pozio, Edoardo
author_sort Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Trichinella spp. infections in wild boar (Sus scrofa), one of the main sources of human trichinellosis, continue to represent a public health problem. The detection of Trichinella spp. larvae in muscles of wild boar by digestion can prevent the occurrence of clinical trichinellosis in humans. However, the analytical sensitivity of digestion in the detection process is dependent on the quantity of tested muscle. Consequently, large quantities of muscle have to be digested to warrant surveillance programs, or more sensitive tests need to be employed. The use of indirect detection methods, such as the ELISA to detect Trichinella spp. infections in wild boar has limitations due to its low specificity. The aim of the study was to implement serological detection of anti-Trichinella spp. antibodies in meat juices from hunted wild boar for the surveillance of Trichinella spp. infections. METHODS: Two tests were used, ELISA for the initial screening test, and a specific and sensitive Western blot (Wb) as a confirmatory test. The circulation of anti-Trichinella IgG was determined in hunted wild boar muscle juice samples in 9 provinces of 5 Italian regions. RESULTS: From 1,462 muscle fluid samples, 315 (21.5%, 95% C.I. 19.51-23.73) were tested positive by ELISA. The 315 ELISA-positive muscle fluid samples were further tested by Wb and 32 (10.1%, 95% C.I. 7.29-13.99) of these were positive with a final seroprevalence of 2.2% (95% C.I 1.55-3.07; 32/1,462). Trichinella britovi larvae were detected by artificial digestion in muscle tissues of one (0.07%, 95%C.I. 0.01-0.39) out of the 1,462 hunted wild boars. No Trichinella spp. larvae were detected in Wb-negative wild boar. From 2006 to 2012, a prevalence of 0.017% was detected by muscle digestion in wild boar hunted in the whole Italian territory. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of both serological methods had a sensitivity 31.4 times higher than that of the digestion (32/1,462 versus 1/1,462), suggesting their potential use for the surveillance of the Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3995759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39957592014-05-07 Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa) Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles Ludovisi, Alessandra Amati, Marco Bandino, Ennio Capelli, Gioia Corrias, Franco Gelmini, Luca Nardi, Alberigo Sacchi, Cristina Cherchi, Simona Lalle, Marco Pozio, Edoardo Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Trichinella spp. infections in wild boar (Sus scrofa), one of the main sources of human trichinellosis, continue to represent a public health problem. The detection of Trichinella spp. larvae in muscles of wild boar by digestion can prevent the occurrence of clinical trichinellosis in humans. However, the analytical sensitivity of digestion in the detection process is dependent on the quantity of tested muscle. Consequently, large quantities of muscle have to be digested to warrant surveillance programs, or more sensitive tests need to be employed. The use of indirect detection methods, such as the ELISA to detect Trichinella spp. infections in wild boar has limitations due to its low specificity. The aim of the study was to implement serological detection of anti-Trichinella spp. antibodies in meat juices from hunted wild boar for the surveillance of Trichinella spp. infections. METHODS: Two tests were used, ELISA for the initial screening test, and a specific and sensitive Western blot (Wb) as a confirmatory test. The circulation of anti-Trichinella IgG was determined in hunted wild boar muscle juice samples in 9 provinces of 5 Italian regions. RESULTS: From 1,462 muscle fluid samples, 315 (21.5%, 95% C.I. 19.51-23.73) were tested positive by ELISA. The 315 ELISA-positive muscle fluid samples were further tested by Wb and 32 (10.1%, 95% C.I. 7.29-13.99) of these were positive with a final seroprevalence of 2.2% (95% C.I 1.55-3.07; 32/1,462). Trichinella britovi larvae were detected by artificial digestion in muscle tissues of one (0.07%, 95%C.I. 0.01-0.39) out of the 1,462 hunted wild boars. No Trichinella spp. larvae were detected in Wb-negative wild boar. From 2006 to 2012, a prevalence of 0.017% was detected by muscle digestion in wild boar hunted in the whole Italian territory. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of both serological methods had a sensitivity 31.4 times higher than that of the digestion (32/1,462 versus 1/1,462), suggesting their potential use for the surveillance of the Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar populations. BioMed Central 2014-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3995759/ /pubmed/24708795 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-171 Text en Copyright © 2014 Gómez-Morales et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Gómez-Morales, Maria Angeles
Ludovisi, Alessandra
Amati, Marco
Bandino, Ennio
Capelli, Gioia
Corrias, Franco
Gelmini, Luca
Nardi, Alberigo
Sacchi, Cristina
Cherchi, Simona
Lalle, Marco
Pozio, Edoardo
Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title_full Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title_fullStr Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title_full_unstemmed Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title_short Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
title_sort indirect versus direct detection methods of trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (sus scrofa)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3995759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24708795
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-171
work_keys_str_mv AT gomezmoralesmariaangeles indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT ludovisialessandra indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT amatimarco indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT bandinoennio indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT capelligioia indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT corriasfranco indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT gelminiluca indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT nardialberigo indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT sacchicristina indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT cherchisimona indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT lallemarco indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa
AT pozioedoardo indirectversusdirectdetectionmethodsoftrichinellasppinfectioninwildboarsusscrofa