title: Evaluation of three immunoserological techniques in the detection of porcine trichinellosis.
abstract: Three immunoserological tests (IST) used for the detection of porcine trichinellosis, immunofluorescence (IF), enzyme-inmunoanalysis (EIA), and Western blot (WB), were compared. Three groups of animals were analyzed: Group 1, animals naturally infected with parasite burdens (PB) of <1 muscle larvae (ML)/g (n=18); Group 2, animals naturally infected with PB of > or =2ML/g (n=23); Group 3, animals raised and home-slaughtered on farms in Argentina (n=59). Animals from Groups 1 and 2 were identified in outbreaks and were analyzed by individual artificial digestion (AD) of > or =30g of muscle. Animals in Group 3 were subjected to AD of 5g of muscle. The detection percentages in sera of swine with the lower PB were 100% for IF, 72% for EIA, and 50% for WB. Eighty-three percent of the animals were serologically positive by two or three techniques. In pigs with the higher PB, the detection percentage was similar for IF and EIA (100% vs. 91%, respectively), and was lower for the WB (61%). Ninety-six percent of the animals were serologically positive by two or three techniques. Group 3 animals had similar detection percentages for the three techniques (IF, 30%; EIA, 29%; WB, 42%). Twenty-five percent of the animals were serologically positive by two or three techniques. Two animals were positive by AD with PB of 0.33 and 2.4ML/g, and were positive for IF and WB, or IF, EIA, and WB. Results indicate that the sensitivity of each technique depends on the PB, and always ranked in sensitivity as IF>EIA>WB. For the lower PB, the decrease in the sensitivity is more pronounced for the EIA. Although the WB has a low sensitivity, the detection of the specific bands for Trichinella spiralis makes it a useful confirmatory tool. Considering that more than 83% of the parasitologically positive animals had 2 or 3 positive serological results using the techniques tested here, for the diagnosis of porcine trichinellosis, pigs positive by two of these serological techniques must be regarded as truly infected pigs.
authors.affiliation: Chair of Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Buenos Aires, Humoral Studies Institute, CONICET, Junín 956, 1113 Buenos Aires, Argentina. sventuri@huemul.ffyb.uba.ar
authors.forename: Stella M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Venturiello
authors.forename: Guillermo G
authors.initials: GG
authors.lastname: Nuñez
authors.forename: Marcela A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Calcagno
authors.forename: Susana N
authors.initials: SN
authors.lastname: Costantino
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001118:Argentina; D015153:Blotting, Western / Q000662:veterinary; D004196:Disease Outbreaks / Q000662:veterinary; D005455:Fluorescent Antibody Technique / Q000662:veterinary; D007124:Immunoenzyme Techniques / Q000662:veterinary; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012698:Serologic Tests / Q000662:veterinary*; D013552:Swine; D013553:Swine Diseases / Q000097:blood / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000469:parasitology*; D014235:Trichinellosis / Q000097:blood / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary*