Cargando…
Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs
In the last two decades, reports of canine heartworm (HW) infection have increased even in non-endemic areas, with a large variability in prevalence data due to the diagnostic strategy employed. This study evaluated the relative performance of two microtiter plate ELISA methods for the detection of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350293/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32580453 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060499 |
_version_ | 1783557236032798720 |
---|---|
author | Panarese, Rossella Iatta, Roberta Mendoza-Roldan, Jairo Alfonso Szlosek, Donald Braff, Jennifer Liu, Joe Beugnet, Frédéric Dantas-Torres, Filipe Beall, Melissa J. Otranto, Domenico |
author_facet | Panarese, Rossella Iatta, Roberta Mendoza-Roldan, Jairo Alfonso Szlosek, Donald Braff, Jennifer Liu, Joe Beugnet, Frédéric Dantas-Torres, Filipe Beall, Melissa J. Otranto, Domenico |
author_sort | Panarese, Rossella |
collection | PubMed |
description | In the last two decades, reports of canine heartworm (HW) infection have increased even in non-endemic areas, with a large variability in prevalence data due to the diagnostic strategy employed. This study evaluated the relative performance of two microtiter plate ELISA methods for the detection of HW antigen in determining the occurrence of Dirofilaria immitis in a dog population previously tested by the modified Knott’s test and SNAP 4Dx Plus test. The prevalence of this infection in the sheltered dog population (n = 363) from a high-risk area for HW infection was 44.4% according to the modified Knott’s test and 58.1% according to a point-of-care antigen ELISA. All serum samples were then evaluated by a microtiter plate ELISA test performed with and without immune complex dissociation (ICD). The prevalence increased from 56.5% to 79.6% following ICD, indicating a high proportion of samples with immune complexing. Comparing these results to that of the modified Knott’s test, the samples negative for microfilariae (mfs) and those positive only for D. repens mfs demonstrated the greatest increase in the proportion of positive results for D. immitis by ELISA following ICD. While the ICD method is not recommended for routine screening, it may be a valuable secondary strategy for identifying HW infections in dogs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7350293 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73502932020-07-15 Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs Panarese, Rossella Iatta, Roberta Mendoza-Roldan, Jairo Alfonso Szlosek, Donald Braff, Jennifer Liu, Joe Beugnet, Frédéric Dantas-Torres, Filipe Beall, Melissa J. Otranto, Domenico Pathogens Article In the last two decades, reports of canine heartworm (HW) infection have increased even in non-endemic areas, with a large variability in prevalence data due to the diagnostic strategy employed. This study evaluated the relative performance of two microtiter plate ELISA methods for the detection of HW antigen in determining the occurrence of Dirofilaria immitis in a dog population previously tested by the modified Knott’s test and SNAP 4Dx Plus test. The prevalence of this infection in the sheltered dog population (n = 363) from a high-risk area for HW infection was 44.4% according to the modified Knott’s test and 58.1% according to a point-of-care antigen ELISA. All serum samples were then evaluated by a microtiter plate ELISA test performed with and without immune complex dissociation (ICD). The prevalence increased from 56.5% to 79.6% following ICD, indicating a high proportion of samples with immune complexing. Comparing these results to that of the modified Knott’s test, the samples negative for microfilariae (mfs) and those positive only for D. repens mfs demonstrated the greatest increase in the proportion of positive results for D. immitis by ELISA following ICD. While the ICD method is not recommended for routine screening, it may be a valuable secondary strategy for identifying HW infections in dogs. MDPI 2020-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7350293/ /pubmed/32580453 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060499 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Panarese, Rossella Iatta, Roberta Mendoza-Roldan, Jairo Alfonso Szlosek, Donald Braff, Jennifer Liu, Joe Beugnet, Frédéric Dantas-Torres, Filipe Beall, Melissa J. Otranto, Domenico Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title | Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title_full | Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title_short | Comparison of Diagnostic Tools for the Detection of Dirofilaria immitis Infection in Dogs |
title_sort | comparison of diagnostic tools for the detection of dirofilaria immitis infection in dogs |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350293/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32580453 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060499 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT panareserossella comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT iattaroberta comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT mendozaroldanjairoalfonso comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT szlosekdonald comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT braffjennifer comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT liujoe comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT beugnetfrederic comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT dantastorresfilipe comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT beallmelissaj comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs AT otrantodomenico comparisonofdiagnostictoolsforthedetectionofdirofilariaimmitisinfectionindogs |