A European inter-laboratory trial to evaluate the performance of three serological methods for diagnosis of Mycoplasma bovis infection in cattle using latent class analysis.
ELISA
Inter-laboratory trial
Latent class analysis
Mycoplasma bovis cattle
Western blot
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2019
25 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
21
05
2019
accepted:
27
09
2019
entrez:
27
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
23
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mycoplasma bovis (M. bovis) is an emerging bovine pathogen, leading to significant economic losses in the livestock industry worldwide. Infection can result in a variety of clinical signs, such as arthritis, pneumonia, mastitis and keratoconjunctivitis, none of which are M. bovis-specific. Laboratory diagnosis is therefore important. Serological tests to detect M. bovis antibodies is considered an effective indicator of infection in a herd and often used as a herd test. Combined with clinical judgement, it can also be used to implement control strategies and/or to estimate the disease prevalence within a country. However, due to lack of harmonisation of approaches to testing, and serological tests used by different laboratories, comparisons of prevalence data between countries is often difficult. A network of researchers from six European countries designed and participated in an inter-laboratory trial, with the aim of evaluating the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of two commercially available ELISA tests (ID Screen® ELISA (IDvet) and BIO K302 ELISA (BIO-X Diagnostics)) for diagnosis of M. bovis infection. Each laboratory received a blinded panel of bovine sera and tested independently, according to manufacturer's instructions. Western blot analyses (WB) performed by one of the participating laboratories was used as a third diagnostic test in the statistical evaluation of Se and Sp values using latent class analysis. The Se of WB, the ID Screen® ELISA and the BIO K302 ELISA were determined to be 91.8, 93.5 and 49.1% respectively, and corresponding Sp of the three tests were 99.6, 98.6 and 89.6%, respectively. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to present an inter-laboratory comparison of the BIO K302 ELISA and the ID Screen® ELISA. Based on our results, the ID Screen® ELISA showed high consistency with WB and performed with higher precision and accuracy than the BIO K302 ELISA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma bovis (M. bovis) is an emerging bovine pathogen, leading to significant economic losses in the livestock industry worldwide. Infection can result in a variety of clinical signs, such as arthritis, pneumonia, mastitis and keratoconjunctivitis, none of which are M. bovis-specific. Laboratory diagnosis is therefore important. Serological tests to detect M. bovis antibodies is considered an effective indicator of infection in a herd and often used as a herd test. Combined with clinical judgement, it can also be used to implement control strategies and/or to estimate the disease prevalence within a country. However, due to lack of harmonisation of approaches to testing, and serological tests used by different laboratories, comparisons of prevalence data between countries is often difficult. A network of researchers from six European countries designed and participated in an inter-laboratory trial, with the aim of evaluating the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of two commercially available ELISA tests (ID Screen® ELISA (IDvet) and BIO K302 ELISA (BIO-X Diagnostics)) for diagnosis of M. bovis infection. Each laboratory received a blinded panel of bovine sera and tested independently, according to manufacturer's instructions. Western blot analyses (WB) performed by one of the participating laboratories was used as a third diagnostic test in the statistical evaluation of Se and Sp values using latent class analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Se of WB, the ID Screen® ELISA and the BIO K302 ELISA were determined to be 91.8, 93.5 and 49.1% respectively, and corresponding Sp of the three tests were 99.6, 98.6 and 89.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to present an inter-laboratory comparison of the BIO K302 ELISA and the ID Screen® ELISA. Based on our results, the ID Screen® ELISA showed high consistency with WB and performed with higher precision and accuracy than the BIO K302 ELISA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31653217
doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-2117-0
pii: 10.1186/s12917-019-2117-0
pmc: PMC6814985
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
369Références
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Jan 1;113(1):96-102
pubmed: 24200370
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014 Feb;21(2):196-202
pubmed: 24334686
Microbiology. 2005 Feb;151(Pt 2):475-89
pubmed: 15699197
Res Vet Sci. 2003 Apr;74(2):105-12
pubmed: 12589733
BMC Vet Res. 2012 Jul 09;8:109
pubmed: 22776779
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013 Sep;20(9):1405-9
pubmed: 23843427
Vet Rec. 2004 Oct 2;155(14):413-6
pubmed: 15508840
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Aug;101(8):7383-7396
pubmed: 29778474
Vet Microbiol. 2005 Aug 30;109(3-4):201-9
pubmed: 15985342
Prev Vet Med. 2005 May 10;68(2-4):145-63
pubmed: 15820113
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Oct 1;121(3-4):338-42
pubmed: 26342789
Biometrics. 1980 Mar;36(1):167-71
pubmed: 7370371
Infect Genet Evol. 2015 Jul;33:118-26
pubmed: 25913158
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2012 Jul;28(2):225-37
pubmed: 22664205
Prev Vet Med. 2007 May 16;79(2-4):244-56
pubmed: 17292499
Vet Microbiol. 2015 Aug 31;179(1-2):15-22
pubmed: 25824130
J Vet Intern Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):772-83
pubmed: 21745245
Vet Q. 1992;14(3):100-4
pubmed: 1413439
Vet Microbiol. 2019 Apr;231:107-115
pubmed: 30955796
Vaccine. 2017 May 19;35(22):2902-2907
pubmed: 28433326
BMC Vet Res. 2019 Mar 12;15(1):86
pubmed: 30866933
Vet Rec. 2011 Apr 30;168(17):459-62
pubmed: 21527487
Vet Rec. 2000 Mar 25;146(13):368-9
pubmed: 10803981
BMC Vet Res. 2018 Aug 30;14(1):258
pubmed: 30165859
BMC Vet Res. 2014 Feb 18;10:42
pubmed: 24533468
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 May;54(5):1269-75
pubmed: 26912757
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Oct;100(10):8296-8309
pubmed: 28780111
Vet Microbiol. 2007 Feb 25;120(1-2):77-86
pubmed: 17118583
Vet Rec. 2018 Sep 1;183(8):256-258
pubmed: 30171113
Vet Sci. 2018 Mar 08;5(1):null
pubmed: 29518043
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1999 Nov;6(6):861-7
pubmed: 10548577
Vet Microbiol. 1992 Oct;32(3-4):375-90
pubmed: 1455631
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 May;65 Suppl 1:91-109
pubmed: 29582590
J Dairy Sci. 2016 May;99(5):3815-3823
pubmed: 26971142
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Nov 1;122(1-2):53-60
pubmed: 26518725
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Apr;93(4):1729-35
pubmed: 20338451
Vet Microbiol. 1993 Oct;37(1-2):127-33
pubmed: 8296442
J Vet Intern Med. 2018 May;32(3):1241-1252
pubmed: 29671903
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 10;9(2):e88328
pubmed: 24520369