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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Panarese, Rossella, Iatta, Roberta, Mendoza-Roldan, Jairo Alfonso, Szlosek, Donald, Braff, Jennifer, Liu, Joe, Beugnet, Frédéric, Dantas-Torres, Filipe, Beall, Melissa J., Otranto, Domenico
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