2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1135(00)00298-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field evaluation of a new commercially available ELISA based on a recombinant antigen for diagnosing Chlamydophila abortus (Chlamydia psittaci serotype 1) infection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
32
1
3

Year Published

2001
2001
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
32
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that the lack of specificity of CFT in the field may be due to the arthritogenic and conjunctival subtypes rather than the more common enteric subtype, as suggested previously (19,22). CFT also performed better than has been reported by other groups, in which the sensitivity has been reported to be lower with either naturally or experimentally infected sheep (5,19,25), although six borderline positive samples and two negative samples were obtained from ewes that either aborted or lambed with heavily infected placentas (group 1A). The specificity of CFT and the variability of CFT antibody titers, in which very low or borderline titers are produced in some animals following abortion, reinforce the arguments that the test should be used only for flocks and not for the diagnosis of infection in individual animals (30).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This suggests that the lack of specificity of CFT in the field may be due to the arthritogenic and conjunctival subtypes rather than the more common enteric subtype, as suggested previously (19,22). CFT also performed better than has been reported by other groups, in which the sensitivity has been reported to be lower with either naturally or experimentally infected sheep (5,19,25), although six borderline positive samples and two negative samples were obtained from ewes that either aborted or lambed with heavily infected placentas (group 1A). The specificity of CFT and the variability of CFT antibody titers, in which very low or borderline titers are produced in some animals following abortion, reinforce the arguments that the test should be used only for flocks and not for the diagnosis of infection in individual animals (30).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…In view of the poor specificity of CFT with the sera from animals experimentally infected (group 3) and naturally infected (group 6) with C. pecorum compared to the results of the rOMP90-4 iELISA, the results obtained with the group 7 sera indicate that the flocks are likely to be infected with both C. pecorum and C. abortus. Such mixed infections have been suggested to be a common occurrence in flocks (5). The CFT results with the group 3 and 6 sera also suggest that the ewes in group 5, which had no clinical history of abortion but which had large numbers of samples seropositive by CFT, are infected with C. pecorum and that this infection is more likely due to an arthritogenic or conjunctival subtype rather than an enteric subtype.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Em bovinos, a resposta humoral desenvolvida nas infecções por C. abortus são IgG1 e IgG2, mas somente a IgG1 (presente nas primeiras 3-4 semanas pós-infecção) fixa o complemento de cobaio (Schmeer et al 1987, Twomey et al 2006. Apesar de suas limitações, a prova de fixação de complemento tem sido utilizada em países onde existem programas de controle de aborto por C. abortus (Buendía et al 2001, Longbottom & Coulter 2003.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…Indirect ELISA for detection of chlamydial antibodies in sheep was developed mostly for research purposes Kaltenboeck et al 1997;Salti-Montesanto et al 1997;Gut-Zangger et al 1999;Kennedy et al 2001;Longbottom et al 2001 andBuendia et al 2001). Nowadays, iELISA kits are available commercially for detection of antibodies against Chlamydophila abortus in animals (Pospí‰il et al 1996;VûÏník andPospí‰il 1997 andBuendia et al 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%