Evaluation of ELISA kits for brucellosis in naturally infected Indian cattle population by latent class analysis

B J TRANGADIA; N TOFT; K NAGAMANI; S K RANA; V A SRINIVASAN

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i1.46145

Authors

B J TRANGADIA Scientist-I, National Dairy Development Board, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500 032 India
N TOFT Professor, National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
K NAGAMANI Executive, National Dairy Development Board, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500 032 India
S K RANA Sr. Scientist R&D Centre, National Dairy Development Board, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500 032 India
V A SRINIVASAN Advisor, National Dairy Development Board, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i1.46145

Keywords:

Brucellosis, Competitive ELISA, Indirect ELISA

Abstract

Brucellosis is endemic in India and the disease is confirmed by various laboratory tests. Among the tests available, ELISA offers several advantages such as ease, cost effectiveness and possibilities of automation for screening large number of serum samples at any given period of time. This study was performed to evaluate 5 commercially available indirect ELISA kits and 1 competitive ELISA kit in naturally infected cattle population in India. Six organized cattle herds located in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Odisha were selected. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the tests were estimated in absence of gold standard using latent class analysis. Nearly perfect Sp was achieved by the CEDI test 99.8% (95%; credibility posterior interval (CPI) = 98.9-100%), Chekit test 99.4% (95%; CPI = 98.3-99.9%) and Svanova test 99.2% (95%; CPI = 99.2-99.9%). Se of the 5 indirect ELISA was ranged between 75.0 and 77.3%. However, a Se of 56.1% (95%; CPI= 36.1-75.1%) and Sp of 91.7% (95%; CPI = 88.7- 94.2%) were recorded for cELISA.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baadsgaard N P and Jørgensen E. 2003. A Bayesian approach to the accuracy of clinical observations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 59: 189–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(03)00100-4

Boqvist S, Kjellgren A and Concha C. 1998. The serological prevalence of Brucella abortus and Leptospira interrogans serovar Hardjo in cows in the Oio region, Gunies Bissau. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 46: 21– 25.

Fosgate G T, Adesiyun A A, Hird D W, Johnson W O, Hietala S K., Schurig G G and Ryan J. 2003. Estimation of receiveroperating characteristic curves to determine accuracy of a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the serodiagnosis of Brucella infection in domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) and cattle. American Journal of Veterinary Research 64: 57–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.57

Gall D, Colling A, Marino O, Moreno E, Nielsen K, Perez B and Samartino L. 1998. Enzyme Immunoassays for serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: A trial in Latin America. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 5: 654-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.5.5.654-661.1998

Greiner M and Gardner I A. 2000. Application of diagnostic tests in veterinary epidemiologic studies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45: 43–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00116-1

Hui S L and Walter S D. 1980, Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 36: 167–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2530508

Jagapur R V, Rathore R, Karthik K and Somavanshi R. 2013. Seroprevalence studies of bovine brucellosis using indirectenzyme- linked immunosorbent assay (i-ELISA) at organized and unorganized farms in three different states of India. Veterinary World 6: 550–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2013.550-553

Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A and Best N. 2009. The BUGS project: Evolution, critique, and future directions. Statistics in Medicine 28: 3049–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3680

McGiven J A, Tucker J D, Perrett L L, Stack J A, Brew S D and MacMillan A P. 2003. Validation of FPA and cELISA for the detection of antibodies to Brucella abortus in cattle sera and comparison to SAT, CFT, and iELISA. Journal of Immunological Methods 278: 171–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1759(03)00201-1

Muma J B, Toft N, Oloya J, Lund A, Nielsen K, Samui K and Skjerve E. 2007. Evaluation of three serological tests for brucellosis in naturally infected cattle using latent class analysis. Veterinary Microbiology 125: 187–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.05.012

Munir R, U R Rehman S T, Kausar R, Saqlan Naqvi S M and Farooq U. 2008. Indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of brucellosis in buffaloes. Acta Veterinaria Brno 77: 401–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200877030401

Nielsen K H, Kellya L, Galla D, Nicoletti P and Kelly W. 1995. Improved competitive enzyme immunoassay for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 46: 285–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2427(94)05361-U

OIE. 2008. Bovine brucellosis. pp 624–659. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Paris, France.

Renukaradhya G J, Isloor S and Rajasekhar M. 2002. Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and control/ eradication of brucellosis in India. Veterinary Microbiology 90: 183–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00253-5

Singh S V, Yadav R K, Gupta V K, Gupta S, Chaubey K K, Agarwal N D and Kumar N. 2014. Co–incidence of bovine Johne’s disease and bovine brucellosis in young bulls of murrah breed in their native tract (Rohtak, Haryana, India). Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 2(1S): 23–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2014/2.1s.23.25

Stack J A, Perrett L L, Brew S D and MacMillan A P. 1999. Competitive ELISA for bovine brucellosis suitable for testing poor quality samples. Veterinary Record 145: 735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.145.25.735

Toft N, Innocent G T, Gettinby G and Reid S W J. 2007. Assessing the convergence of Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods: An example from evaluation of diagnostic tests in absence of a gold standard. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 79: 244–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.01.003

Toft N, Jørgensen E and Højsgaard S. 2005. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 68: 19–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.01.006

Trangadia B J, Rana S K, Mukherjee F and Srinivasan V A. 2010. Prevalence of brucellosis and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in organized dairy farms in India. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42: 203–07. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-009-9407-7

Trangadia B J, Rana S K, Nagmani K and Srinivasan V A. 2012. Serological investigation of bovine brucellosis, Johne’s disease and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in two states of India. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research 2: 38–41.