Loading…

Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs

Six surra negative piglets (6-week-old) were infected with Trypanosoma evansi and two uninfected piglets were used as negative controls. Detection performances of various diagnostic tests (LAMP, PCR and parasitological tests) were compared by analysing blood samples collected weekly over a period of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary parasitology 2005-06, Vol.130 (3), p.327-330
Main Authors: Thekisoe, Oriel M.M., Inoue, Noboru, Kuboki, Noritaka, Tuntasuvan, Darunee, Bunnoy, Wannee, Borisutsuwan, Somchai, Igarashi, Ikuo, Sugimoto, Chihiro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763
container_end_page 330
container_issue 3
container_start_page 327
container_title Veterinary parasitology
container_volume 130
creator Thekisoe, Oriel M.M.
Inoue, Noboru
Kuboki, Noritaka
Tuntasuvan, Darunee
Bunnoy, Wannee
Borisutsuwan, Somchai
Igarashi, Ikuo
Sugimoto, Chihiro
description Six surra negative piglets (6-week-old) were infected with Trypanosoma evansi and two uninfected piglets were used as negative controls. Detection performances of various diagnostic tests (LAMP, PCR and parasitological tests) were compared by analysing blood samples collected weekly over a period of 11 weeks. With a two by two analysis without a gold standard, all methods were 100% specific. MI had the highest sensitivity of 65%, while LAMP, PCR, MHCT and TBS had sensitivities of 45, 33, 38 and 24%, respectively. However, when the analysis was done using MI as a gold standard, the sensitivity of MHCT was the highest at 53% followed by LAMP, PCR and TBS at 49, 44 and 35%, respectively. All methods gave high specificity above 60%. This study validates LAMP as an alternative method for the diagnosis of surra.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.04.019
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67886382</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0304401705001780</els_id><sourcerecordid>67886382</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkd-K1DAUh4so7rj6BqK5EgVbT9I0bW-EZVj_wIiL7l6HND0ZM6RNN-kMzsv4rGboiHd6FTh855dzzpdlzykUFKh4tysOOE8qFAygKoAXQNsH2Yo2dZmzqoKH2QpK4DkHWl9kT2LcAQAHUT_OLmjVQkNZucp-XR-U26vZ-pF4Q5z3Uz5gb9WMPbHRzz8wDMoRNUzOGqsX8vXm6svNm7fkZv2NqLEnaQwV7eyd3ybEkRnjHInxgfQ4o_6TfhuOkxp99IMieFBjtMSOBH9OGOyA46ycO6aKSR3p98lu49PskVEu4rPze5ndfbi-XX_KN18_fl5fbXLNGzrn2LG2K6HjtTGm6qnoeKtEJVhjjKaiQd7pti07xRD6shGsNqLVFGvOdKVrUV5mr5bcKfj7fZpeDjZqdE6N6PdRirppRNmw_4K0FrzlVZ1AvoA6-BgDGjmlJVU4SgryJFDu5CJQngRK4DIJTG0vzvn7Lnn423Q2loCXC2CUl2obbJR33xnQElIoQHPa5f1CYDrYwWKQUVscdbIa0mVl7-2_Z_gNSe66xQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17649457</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M. ; Inoue, Noboru ; Kuboki, Noritaka ; Tuntasuvan, Darunee ; Bunnoy, Wannee ; Borisutsuwan, Somchai ; Igarashi, Ikuo ; Sugimoto, Chihiro</creator><creatorcontrib>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M. ; Inoue, Noboru ; Kuboki, Noritaka ; Tuntasuvan, Darunee ; Bunnoy, Wannee ; Borisutsuwan, Somchai ; Igarashi, Ikuo ; Sugimoto, Chihiro</creatorcontrib><description>Six surra negative piglets (6-week-old) were infected with Trypanosoma evansi and two uninfected piglets were used as negative controls. Detection performances of various diagnostic tests (LAMP, PCR and parasitological tests) were compared by analysing blood samples collected weekly over a period of 11 weeks. With a two by two analysis without a gold standard, all methods were 100% specific. MI had the highest sensitivity of 65%, while LAMP, PCR, MHCT and TBS had sensitivities of 45, 33, 38 and 24%, respectively. However, when the analysis was done using MI as a gold standard, the sensitivity of MHCT was the highest at 53% followed by LAMP, PCR and TBS at 49, 44 and 35%, respectively. All methods gave high specificity above 60%. This study validates LAMP as an alternative method for the diagnosis of surra.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-4017</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2550</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.04.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15908123</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animals ; diagnostic techniques ; disease detection ; disease diagnosis ; DNA, Protozoan ; experimental infection ; genetic techniques and protocols ; infection ; LAMP ; microhematocrit centrifuge test (MHCT) ; mouse inoculation test (MI) ; Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques - veterinary ; Parasitological tests ; PCR ; piglets ; polymerase chain reaction ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; surra ; Swine ; Swine Diseases - diagnosis ; thin blood smear test (TBS) ; Trypanosoma - genetics ; Trypanosoma - isolation &amp; purification ; Trypanosoma evansi ; trypanosomiasis ; Trypanosomiasis - diagnosis ; Trypanosomiasis - veterinary</subject><ispartof>Veterinary parasitology, 2005-06, Vol.130 (3), p.327-330</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15908123$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inoue, Noboru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuboki, Noritaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuntasuvan, Darunee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunnoy, Wannee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borisutsuwan, Somchai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Igarashi, Ikuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimoto, Chihiro</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs</title><title>Veterinary parasitology</title><addtitle>Vet Parasitol</addtitle><description>Six surra negative piglets (6-week-old) were infected with Trypanosoma evansi and two uninfected piglets were used as negative controls. Detection performances of various diagnostic tests (LAMP, PCR and parasitological tests) were compared by analysing blood samples collected weekly over a period of 11 weeks. With a two by two analysis without a gold standard, all methods were 100% specific. MI had the highest sensitivity of 65%, while LAMP, PCR, MHCT and TBS had sensitivities of 45, 33, 38 and 24%, respectively. However, when the analysis was done using MI as a gold standard, the sensitivity of MHCT was the highest at 53% followed by LAMP, PCR and TBS at 49, 44 and 35%, respectively. All methods gave high specificity above 60%. This study validates LAMP as an alternative method for the diagnosis of surra.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>diagnostic techniques</subject><subject>disease detection</subject><subject>disease diagnosis</subject><subject>DNA, Protozoan</subject><subject>experimental infection</subject><subject>genetic techniques and protocols</subject><subject>infection</subject><subject>LAMP</subject><subject>microhematocrit centrifuge test (MHCT)</subject><subject>mouse inoculation test (MI)</subject><subject>Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques - veterinary</subject><subject>Parasitological tests</subject><subject>PCR</subject><subject>piglets</subject><subject>polymerase chain reaction</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>surra</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Swine Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>thin blood smear test (TBS)</subject><subject>Trypanosoma - genetics</subject><subject>Trypanosoma - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Trypanosoma evansi</subject><subject>trypanosomiasis</subject><subject>Trypanosomiasis - diagnosis</subject><subject>Trypanosomiasis - veterinary</subject><issn>0304-4017</issn><issn>1873-2550</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkd-K1DAUh4so7rj6BqK5EgVbT9I0bW-EZVj_wIiL7l6HND0ZM6RNN-kMzsv4rGboiHd6FTh855dzzpdlzykUFKh4tysOOE8qFAygKoAXQNsH2Yo2dZmzqoKH2QpK4DkHWl9kT2LcAQAHUT_OLmjVQkNZucp-XR-U26vZ-pF4Q5z3Uz5gb9WMPbHRzz8wDMoRNUzOGqsX8vXm6svNm7fkZv2NqLEnaQwV7eyd3ybEkRnjHInxgfQ4o_6TfhuOkxp99IMieFBjtMSOBH9OGOyA46ycO6aKSR3p98lu49PskVEu4rPze5ndfbi-XX_KN18_fl5fbXLNGzrn2LG2K6HjtTGm6qnoeKtEJVhjjKaiQd7pti07xRD6shGsNqLVFGvOdKVrUV5mr5bcKfj7fZpeDjZqdE6N6PdRirppRNmw_4K0FrzlVZ1AvoA6-BgDGjmlJVU4SgryJFDu5CJQngRK4DIJTG0vzvn7Lnn423Q2loCXC2CUl2obbJR33xnQElIoQHPa5f1CYDrYwWKQUVscdbIa0mVl7-2_Z_gNSe66xQ</recordid><startdate>20050630</startdate><enddate>20050630</enddate><creator>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M.</creator><creator>Inoue, Noboru</creator><creator>Kuboki, Noritaka</creator><creator>Tuntasuvan, Darunee</creator><creator>Bunnoy, Wannee</creator><creator>Borisutsuwan, Somchai</creator><creator>Igarashi, Ikuo</creator><creator>Sugimoto, Chihiro</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050630</creationdate><title>Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs</title><author>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M. ; Inoue, Noboru ; Kuboki, Noritaka ; Tuntasuvan, Darunee ; Bunnoy, Wannee ; Borisutsuwan, Somchai ; Igarashi, Ikuo ; Sugimoto, Chihiro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>diagnostic techniques</topic><topic>disease detection</topic><topic>disease diagnosis</topic><topic>DNA, Protozoan</topic><topic>experimental infection</topic><topic>genetic techniques and protocols</topic><topic>infection</topic><topic>LAMP</topic><topic>microhematocrit centrifuge test (MHCT)</topic><topic>mouse inoculation test (MI)</topic><topic>Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques - veterinary</topic><topic>Parasitological tests</topic><topic>PCR</topic><topic>piglets</topic><topic>polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>surra</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Swine Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>thin blood smear test (TBS)</topic><topic>Trypanosoma - genetics</topic><topic>Trypanosoma - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Trypanosoma evansi</topic><topic>trypanosomiasis</topic><topic>Trypanosomiasis - diagnosis</topic><topic>Trypanosomiasis - veterinary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inoue, Noboru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuboki, Noritaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuntasuvan, Darunee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunnoy, Wannee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borisutsuwan, Somchai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Igarashi, Ikuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimoto, Chihiro</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary parasitology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thekisoe, Oriel M.M.</au><au>Inoue, Noboru</au><au>Kuboki, Noritaka</au><au>Tuntasuvan, Darunee</au><au>Bunnoy, Wannee</au><au>Borisutsuwan, Somchai</au><au>Igarashi, Ikuo</au><au>Sugimoto, Chihiro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary parasitology</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Parasitol</addtitle><date>2005-06-30</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>130</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>327</spage><epage>330</epage><pages>327-330</pages><issn>0304-4017</issn><eissn>1873-2550</eissn><abstract>Six surra negative piglets (6-week-old) were infected with Trypanosoma evansi and two uninfected piglets were used as negative controls. Detection performances of various diagnostic tests (LAMP, PCR and parasitological tests) were compared by analysing blood samples collected weekly over a period of 11 weeks. With a two by two analysis without a gold standard, all methods were 100% specific. MI had the highest sensitivity of 65%, while LAMP, PCR, MHCT and TBS had sensitivities of 45, 33, 38 and 24%, respectively. However, when the analysis was done using MI as a gold standard, the sensitivity of MHCT was the highest at 53% followed by LAMP, PCR and TBS at 49, 44 and 35%, respectively. All methods gave high specificity above 60%. This study validates LAMP as an alternative method for the diagnosis of surra.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>15908123</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.04.019</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0304-4017
ispartof Veterinary parasitology, 2005-06, Vol.130 (3), p.327-330
issn 0304-4017
1873-2550
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67886382
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Animals
diagnostic techniques
disease detection
disease diagnosis
DNA, Protozoan
experimental infection
genetic techniques and protocols
infection
LAMP
microhematocrit centrifuge test (MHCT)
mouse inoculation test (MI)
Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques - veterinary
Parasitological tests
PCR
piglets
polymerase chain reaction
Sensitivity and Specificity
surra
Swine
Swine Diseases - diagnosis
thin blood smear test (TBS)
Trypanosoma - genetics
Trypanosoma - isolation & purification
Trypanosoma evansi
trypanosomiasis
Trypanosomiasis - diagnosis
Trypanosomiasis - veterinary
title Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), PCR and parasitological tests for detection of Trypanosoma evansi in experimentally infected pigs
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T04%3A32%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20loop-mediated%20isothermal%20amplification%20(LAMP),%20PCR%20and%20parasitological%20tests%20for%20detection%20of%20Trypanosoma%20evansi%20in%20experimentally%20infected%20pigs&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20parasitology&rft.au=Thekisoe,%20Oriel%20M.M.&rft.date=2005-06-30&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=327&rft.epage=330&rft.pages=327-330&rft.issn=0304-4017&rft.eissn=1873-2550&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.04.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67886382%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-eb29b30b47fff5d16b49a65628ffc168e4bc993ba2e0d38627f69c1e742c5c763%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17649457&rft_id=info:pmid/15908123&rfr_iscdi=true