Comparison between intradermal tuberculin skin testing and interferon gamma ELISA for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in Jabalpur region

VARUN BASSESSAR; A B SHRIVASTAV; MADHU SWAMY; AMOL ROKDE

doi:10.56093/ijans.v84i2.37812

Authors

VARUN BASSESSAR Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu-Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 001 India
A B SHRIVASTAV Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu-Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 001 India
MADHU SWAMY Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu-Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 001 India
AMOL ROKDE Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu-Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v84i2.37812

Keywords:

Bovine tuberculosis, INF gamma ELISA, Mycobacterium bovis, Tuberculin testing

Abstract

Interferon gamma ELISA was compared with the conventional tuberculin testing for the antemortem diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. A single intradermal tuberculin skin test (SID) was carried out as per the standard protocol on animals from which 10 ml blood was collected earlier and Mycobacterium bovis gamma interferon ELISA for cattle was performed. Out of the 100 animals tested, 36 animals (36%) were found positive by tuberculin testing and 24% (22% bovine and 2% avian tuberculin) were found positive for interferon gamma. From 36 tuberculin positive cases only 16 (44.44%) were positive for interferon gamma. Interestingly, from 64 tuberculin negative cases, 8 (12.50%) were determined to be positive for interferon gamma. It can be concluded that SID has a high rate of false-positive as well as false-negative results and the specificity of interferon gamma assay was more than SID.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ameni G, Miorner H, Roger F and Tibbo M. 2000. Comparison between comparative tuberculin and gamma-interferon tests for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 32: 267–76.

Cagiola M, Feliziani F, Severi G, Pasquali P and Rutili D. 2004. Analysis of possible factors affecting the specificity of the gamma interferon test in tuberculosis-free cattle herds. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 11: 952–56.

De Kantor I N, Odeon A C, Stefan P E, Auza M J, Madrid C R and Marchevsky N. 1984. Sensitivity of the cervical and caudal fold tuberculin tests with Mycobacterium bovis in infected cattle of Argentina. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics 3: 137–50.

Desmecht M. 1980. Comparative cervical tuberculin testing in cattle. Flemish Veterinary Journal 49: 94–99.

Domingo M, Liebana E, Carrera J, Vilafranca M, Casal J, Aranaz A, Altimira J, Vidal D, Marco A, Planell J M, Mateos A and Dominguez L. 1995. Comparative study of the skin test and the gamma-interferon assay in the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Veterinary Medicine 12: 307–17.

Ganesan P I. 2012. Comparative efficacy of the single intradermal test and gamma interferon assay in the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Indian Veterinary Journal 89: 126.

Gormley E, Doyle M B, McGill K, Costello E, Good M and Collins J D. 2004. The effect of the tuberculin test and the consequences of a delay in blood culture on the sensitivity of a gamma- interferon assay for the detection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle. Veterinary Immunology and immuno- pathology 102(4): 413–20.

Kovacic H and Lackovic M. 1984. A single tuberculin test for bovine tuberculosis. Veterinary Herald 38: 749–55.

Lilenbaum W, Schettini J C, Souza G N, Ribeiro E R and Moreira E C. 1999. Comparison between a gamma-IFN assay and intradermal tuberculin for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in field trials in Brazil. Veterinary Medicine 46: 353–58.

Miguel A, Maroto J V, San Bautista A, Baixauli C, Cebolla V, Pascual B, Lopez S and Guardiola J L. 2004. The grafting of triploid is an advantageous alternative to soil fumigation by methyl bromide for control of Fusarium wilt. Scientia Horticulturae 103: 9–17.

Nalini T S, Sreenivas Gowda R N, Vijayasen S K and Rao S. 1998. Autopsy incidence of TB in bovines. Scientific Proceedings of the Second Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conference on animal health and production in rural areas – the essential role of women at all levels. Vol 2. pp. 112–124. 22–27 February, Bangalore.

Neill S D, Cassidy J, Hanna D P, Mackie J M, Pollock A, Clements E and Bryson D G. 1994. Detection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in skin test-negative cattle with an assay for bovine interferon-gamma. Veterinary Record 135: 134–35.

OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines. 2008. Bovine Tuberculosis. Pp. 683–97. OIE, Paris.

Okafor C C, Grooms D L, Bolin S R, Averill J J and Kaneene J B. 2013. Evaluation of the interferon-γ assay on blood collected at exsanguination of cattle under field conditions for surveillance of bovine tuberculosis. Transbound and Emerging Diseases 3: 22.

Ozturk D, Pehlivanoglu F, Kale M, Tok A A, Guldali Y and Turutoglu H. 2010. In vitro diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis by γ-interferon assay. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Kafkas University 16: 875–78.

Pusic I, Milicevic V, Sara S, Prodanov J, Grgic Z and Stojanovj D. 2009. A preliminary trial to evaluate the gammainterferon assay for the detection of tuberculosis in cattle under local conditions. Serbia Lucrari Stiinlifice Medicina Veterinara. Vol. 13 (1). Timisoara.

Rothel J S, Jones S L, Corner L A, Cox J C and Wood P R. 1992. The gamma interferon assay for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in cattle: conditions affecting the production of gamma-inteferon in whole blood culture. Australian Veterinary Journal 69: 1–4.

Ryan T J, Buddle B M and De Lisle G W. 2000. An evaluation of the gamma interferon test for detecting bovine tuberculosis in cattle 8 to 28 days after tuberculin skin testing. Research in Veterinary Science 69: 57–61.

Schiller I, Vordermeier H M, Waters W R, Palmer M, Thacker T, Whelan A, Hardegger R, Marg-Haufe B, Raeber A and Oesch

B. 2009. Assessment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis OmpATb as a Novel Antigen for the Diagnosis of Bovine Tuberculosis. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 16: 1314–21.

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1994. Statistical Methods. 7th edn. Pp. 312–317. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Thakur A, Sharma M, Katoch V C, Dhar P and Katoch R C 2010. A study on the prevalence of Bovine Tuberculosis in farmed dairy cattle in Himachal Pradesh. Veterinary World 3: 409–41.

Whipple D L, Bolin C A, Davis A J, Jarnagin J L, Johnson D C, Nabors R S, Payeur J B, Saari D A, Wilson A J and Wolf M M. 1995. Comparison of sensitivity of the caudal fold skin test and commercial gamma-interferon assay for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 56: 415– 19.

Whipple D L, Palmer M V, Slaughter R E and Jones S L. 2001. Comparison of purified protein derivatives and effect of skin testing on results of a commercial gamma interferon assay for diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 13: 117–22.

Wilson T M and Howes M. 1980. An epizootic of bovine tuberculosis in Barbados, West Indies. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians. Volume I. pp. 136–44.

Wood P R and Jones S L. 2001. BOVIGAM: an in vitro cellular diagnostic test for bovine tuberculosis. CSL Animal Health 81: 147–55.

Wood P R, Corner L A, Rothel J S, Ripper J L, Fifis T, McCormick B S, Fransis B, Melville L, Small K, de Witte K, Tolson J, Ryan T J, de Lisle G W, Cox J C, Jones S L and de Lisle G W. 1992. A field evaluation of serological and cellular diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis. Veterinary Microbiology 31: 71–79.