Cargando…

Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections

BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether heated serum allows for earlier detection of Dirofilaria immitis antigen, dogs with experimental D. immitis infections underwent weekly blood sampling to compare antigen results using both heated and unheated serum. METHODS: One of two isolates (JYD-34 or Big Head™) w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carmichael, James, McCall, Scott, DiCosty, Utami, Mansour, Abdelmoneim, Roycroft, Linda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2445-5
_version_ 1783279182402289664
author Carmichael, James
McCall, Scott
DiCosty, Utami
Mansour, Abdelmoneim
Roycroft, Linda
author_facet Carmichael, James
McCall, Scott
DiCosty, Utami
Mansour, Abdelmoneim
Roycroft, Linda
author_sort Carmichael, James
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether heated serum allows for earlier detection of Dirofilaria immitis antigen, dogs with experimental D. immitis infections underwent weekly blood sampling to compare antigen results using both heated and unheated serum. METHODS: One of two isolates (JYD-34 or Big Head™) were used to infect naïve laboratory beagle dogs. Serum was collected from dogs weekly and divided into two aliquots, heated and unheated. The samples designated as heated were placed in a heat block at 104 °C for 10 min then centrifuged with collection of the resulting supernatant. Two commercial ELISAs, DiroCHEK® (Synbiotics Corporation, Zoetis) and PetChek® (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.), were used to conduct D. immitis antigen testing on all serum samples. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the mean number of days from infection to positive D. immitis antigen status between the two commercial testing kits (DiroCHEK® versus PetChek®) with either heated or unheated serum. When unheated serum was utilized, very strong agreement between the two assays was demonstrated using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (R (c) = 0.98). However, when heated serum was compared, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was only R (c) = 0.64, showing a lesser agreement. There was a statistical difference in the mean number of days from infection to a positive test result for unheated serum when compared to mean days to positive status with heated serum. For DiroCHEK® the heated serum yielded a positive result 126.9 ± 18.9 days postinfection while the unheated serum yielded a positive result 162.6 ± 23.0 days postinfection; this was a significant 35.7 ± 32.2 days longer, on average, compared with heated serum. With PetChek® the heated serum yielded a positive result 131.5 ± 11.7 days postinfection while the unheated serum yielded a positive result 162.8 ± 23.8 days postinfection; this was a significant 31.3 ± 25.5 days longer, on average, compared with heated serum. The detection of D. immitis antigen earlier using heated serum was consistent for both heartworm isolates. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest heat treatment of serum may allow earlier detection of D. immitis antigen but with less consistency demonstrated across two testing platforms as compared with antigen detection using unheated serum.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5688511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56885112017-11-22 Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections Carmichael, James McCall, Scott DiCosty, Utami Mansour, Abdelmoneim Roycroft, Linda Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether heated serum allows for earlier detection of Dirofilaria immitis antigen, dogs with experimental D. immitis infections underwent weekly blood sampling to compare antigen results using both heated and unheated serum. METHODS: One of two isolates (JYD-34 or Big Head™) were used to infect naïve laboratory beagle dogs. Serum was collected from dogs weekly and divided into two aliquots, heated and unheated. The samples designated as heated were placed in a heat block at 104 °C for 10 min then centrifuged with collection of the resulting supernatant. Two commercial ELISAs, DiroCHEK® (Synbiotics Corporation, Zoetis) and PetChek® (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.), were used to conduct D. immitis antigen testing on all serum samples. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the mean number of days from infection to positive D. immitis antigen status between the two commercial testing kits (DiroCHEK® versus PetChek®) with either heated or unheated serum. When unheated serum was utilized, very strong agreement between the two assays was demonstrated using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (R (c) = 0.98). However, when heated serum was compared, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was only R (c) = 0.64, showing a lesser agreement. There was a statistical difference in the mean number of days from infection to a positive test result for unheated serum when compared to mean days to positive status with heated serum. For DiroCHEK® the heated serum yielded a positive result 126.9 ± 18.9 days postinfection while the unheated serum yielded a positive result 162.6 ± 23.0 days postinfection; this was a significant 35.7 ± 32.2 days longer, on average, compared with heated serum. With PetChek® the heated serum yielded a positive result 131.5 ± 11.7 days postinfection while the unheated serum yielded a positive result 162.8 ± 23.8 days postinfection; this was a significant 31.3 ± 25.5 days longer, on average, compared with heated serum. The detection of D. immitis antigen earlier using heated serum was consistent for both heartworm isolates. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest heat treatment of serum may allow earlier detection of D. immitis antigen but with less consistency demonstrated across two testing platforms as compared with antigen detection using unheated serum. BioMed Central 2017-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5688511/ /pubmed/29143664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2445-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Carmichael, James
McCall, Scott
DiCosty, Utami
Mansour, Abdelmoneim
Roycroft, Linda
Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title_full Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title_fullStr Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title_short Evaluation of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
title_sort evaluation of dirofilaria immitis antigen detection comparing heated and unheated serum in dogs with experimental heartworm infections
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2445-5
work_keys_str_mv AT carmichaeljames evaluationofdirofilariaimmitisantigendetectioncomparingheatedandunheatedserumindogswithexperimentalheartworminfections
AT mccallscott evaluationofdirofilariaimmitisantigendetectioncomparingheatedandunheatedserumindogswithexperimentalheartworminfections
AT dicostyutami evaluationofdirofilariaimmitisantigendetectioncomparingheatedandunheatedserumindogswithexperimentalheartworminfections
AT mansourabdelmoneim evaluationofdirofilariaimmitisantigendetectioncomparingheatedandunheatedserumindogswithexperimentalheartworminfections
AT roycroftlinda evaluationofdirofilariaimmitisantigendetectioncomparingheatedandunheatedserumindogswithexperimentalheartworminfections