Comparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosis

Abstract

Background Brucellosis is a world-wide extended zoonosis that causes a grave problem in developing economies. Animal vaccination and diagnosis are essential to control brucellosis, and the need for accurate but also simple and low-cost tests that can be implemented in low-infrastructure laboratories has been emphasized. Methodology We evaluated bovine, sheep, goat and swine lateral flow immunochromatography assay kits (LFA), the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a well-validated protein G indirect ELISA (iELISA) using sera of Brucella culture-positive and unvaccinated brucellosis free livestock. Sera from cattle vaccinated with S19 and RB51 brucellosis vaccines were also tested. Finally, we compared RBT and LFA using sera of white Fulani cattle of unknown bacteriological status from a brucellosis endemic area of Nigeria. Results and conclusions Although differences were not statistically significant, RBT showed the highest values for diagnostic sensitivity/specificity in cattle (LFA, 96.6/98.8; RBT, 98.9/100; and iELISA, 96.6/100) and the iELISA yielded highest values in sheep (LFA, 94.0/100; RBT, 92.0/100; iELISA, 100/100), goats (LFA, 95.7/96.2; RBT, 97.8/100; iELISA, 100/100) and pigs (LFA, 92.3/100; RBT, 92.3/100; iELISA, 100/100). Vaccine S19 administered subcutaneously interfered in all tests but conjunctival application minimized the problem. Although designed not to interfere in serodiagnosis, vaccine RB51 interfered in LFA and iELISA but not in the RBT. We found closely similar apparent prevalence results when testing the Nigerian Fulani cattle by RBT and LFA. Although both RBT and LFA (showing similar diagnostic performance) are suitable for small laboratories in resource-limited areas, RBT has the advantage that a single reagent is useful in all animal species. Considering these advantages, its low cost and that it is also useful for human brucellosis diagnosis, RBT might be a good choice for resource-limited laboratories.

Serological and Molecular Detection of Bovine Brucellosis at Institutional Livestock Farms in Punjab, Pakistan

“…Meanwhile, the iELISA is considered to be sensitive and could be used as a single diagnostic criterion at standardized labs [30]. However, RBPT remains an adequate screening test based upon the disease epidemiology, purpose of the diagnostic criteria and availability of the resources [31,32]. Therefore, we tested our sera by both tests and determined the possible agreement between these two tests (Tables 5 and 6).…”

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in sheep and goats in the Arabian Gulf region

“…However, RBPT is convenient because of low cost, feasibility, and reliability as a field diagnostic test compared with i-ELISA [ 37 , 38 ]. The latter technique provides acceptable sensitivity and specificity [ 39 , 40 ].…”

Revisiting Brucellosis in Small Ruminants of Western Border Areas in Pakistan

“…Conversely, RBPT is a cheaper, sensitive and readily available field screening test; however, it has lower diagnostic specificity [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, it remains the most adequate screening test to be used in the absence of a gold or validated standardized test and in resource-limited situations [ 16 , 20 , 21 ]. Hence, we used RBPT and indirect ELISA and compared the agreement of the two tests.…”