2011
DOI: 10.1670/10-193.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of Diagnostic Tests in Wildlife: The Case of Chytridiomycosis in Wild Amphibians

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
47
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(53 reference statements)
1
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used two methods: (i) epithelial swabbing and (ii) histology of phalanges to sample for Bd [44], [45]. Cotton swabs were utilised to brush the Bd sensitive areas of each individual live frog including the ventral surface of each thigh, hind foot and pelvis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used two methods: (i) epithelial swabbing and (ii) histology of phalanges to sample for Bd [44], [45]. Cotton swabs were utilised to brush the Bd sensitive areas of each individual live frog including the ventral surface of each thigh, hind foot and pelvis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Samples were considered as positive when threshold cycle values (PCR cycle at point of detection) were equal to or exceeded the level for 11 copies of the target fragment, which corresponds to about 0.1 zoospore genomic equivalents (Kirshtein et al 2007), a common standard that can still be reliably amplified (e.g. Boyle et al 2004, Skerratt et al 2011. Sam ples found to be positive in the first round were tested a second time to confirm the result and reduce the number of false positive counts probably caused by contamination in the laboratory (Skerratt et al 2011).…”
Section: Dna Preparation and Bd Detection Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Boyle et al 2004, Skerratt et al 2011. Sam ples found to be positive in the first round were tested a second time to confirm the result and reduce the number of false positive counts probably caused by contamination in the laboratory (Skerratt et al 2011). …”
Section: Dna Preparation and Bd Detection Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pathogen overdispersion, another feature well recognized as common to macroparasites, occurs with chytridiomycosis (Skerratt et al . ), but its underlying causes and effects on disease dynamics have not been investigated. Pathogen overdispersion (otherwise known as parasite aggregation, pathogen aggregation or pathogen distribution heterogeneity) describes a distribution of infectious organisms among hosts whereby most infected individuals have low infectious burdens, while very few hosts have high burdens.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%