title: Evaluation of a commercial ELISA kit for detection of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii in serum, plasma and meat juice from experimentally and naturally infected sheep.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Toxoplasmosis is one of the most common food borne zoonoses worldwide, and can be a serious life-threatening disease in the congenitally infected fetus and in immunosuppressed patients. Among food animals, sheep along with goats and pigs possess the highest incidence of T. gondii cysts in meat, and play a major role as a source of human infection.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this study, a new commercial ELISA kit (PrioCHECK Toxoplasma Ab SR, Prionics Schlieren-Zurich, Switzerland) for the detection of anti-T. gondii antibodies in serum, plasma and meat juice of sheep, was evaluated by comparing it with the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), indirect haemagglutination test (IHA) and real-time PCR, on samples from experimentally inoculated and naturally exposed sheep.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The commercial ELISA detected the infection status in 50% and 100% of sheep orally inoculated with 10,000 T. gondii oocysts (n = 6), from two or three weeks post infection (wpi), respectively, both on serum and plasma samples. Meat juice from all experimentally inoculated sheep collected at slaughter (12 wpi) showed positive ELISA values. In naturally exposed sheep (n = 396), the ELISA showed a very good agreement with IFAT (kappa = 0.91-1.0) and IHA (kappa = 0.96-1.0) performed on serum; and a positive correlation was observed between ELISA values and IFAT titers. By a Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, the commercial ELISA had relative sensitivities between 93.33% and 100%, and relative specificities between 96.87% and 100% respect to IFAT and IHA, depending on the considered cut-off value and animal groups tested. Furthermore, the ELISA correctly recognized all animals reacting positive in real-time PCR. The ELISA results on meat juice agreed with those on serum samples in all experimentally inoculated animals, and in 94 out of 96 (97.9%) naturally exposed sheep, when meat juice was tested at a 1:10 dilution.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The commercial ELISA kit evaluated in this study could represent a valuable tool to improve the surveillance and reporting system for T. gondii in sheep populations at the farm level or for diagnosis at the slaughterhouse, contributing to the control of this widespread zoonosis.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Parasitology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 266a, Zurich CH-8057, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Sabine B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Glor
authors.forename: Renate
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Edelhofer
authors.forename: Felix
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Grimm
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Deplazes
authors.forename: Walter
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Basso
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000913:Antibodies, Protozoan / Q000032:analysis*; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / Q000379:methods; D019084:Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; D019649:Food Industry / Q000379:methods*; D006386:Hemagglutination Tests; D008460:Meat / Q000032:analysis*; D010949:Plasma / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000276:immunology; D060888:Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; D012756:Sheep; D012757:Sheep Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014124:Toxoplasmosis, Animal / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014730:Veterinary Medicine / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D000913:Antibodies, Protozoan
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2000 Nov;30(12-13):1217-58
references.pmid: 11113252
references.citation: Trends Parasitol. 2009 Jan;25(1):18-22
references.pmid: 18951847
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2010 Feb;57(1):82-94
references.pmid: 19744298
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Jul 15;321(7254):142-7
references.pmid: 10894691
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Mar;44(3):720-4
references.pmid: 16517845
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2012 Feb 10;183(3-4):203-8
references.pmid: 21864981
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2008 Jul;38(8-9):999-1006
references.pmid: 18191859
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 1999 Oct 1;86(3):155-71
references.pmid: 10511098
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2010 Feb;57(1):18-26
references.pmid: 19744300
references.citation: Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
references.pmid: 3287615
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2013 Jun;43(7):565-70
references.pmid: 23538054
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2011 May 11;177(3-4):290-7
references.pmid: 21183278
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 1997 Oct;72(2):129-40
references.pmid: 9404839
references.citation: Parasitol Res. 2007 Jun;101(1):111-5
references.pmid: 17333278
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2005 Mar 31;128(3-4):177-81
references.pmid: 15740853
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2009 Jul 7;163(1-2):1-14
references.pmid: 19395175
references.citation: Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1974 Aug;52(4):647-53
references.pmid: 4447500
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2011 Nov;58(7):472-8
references.pmid: 21824348
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2001 Jun 12;97(3):191-8
references.pmid: 11390071
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2006 Dec 20;142(3-4):376-9
references.pmid: 16919879
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2010 Feb;40(2):193-200
references.pmid: 19631651
references.citation: Vet Parasitol. 2013 Mar 31;193(1-3):95-9
references.pmid: 23219045
references.citation: Vet Res. 1998 May-Aug;29(3-4):289-310
references.pmid: 9689743
references.citation: J Parasitol. 2008 Dec;94(6):1259-63
references.pmid: 18576886
references.citation: J Parasitol. 1980 Feb;66(1):111-4
references.pmid: 7365627
references.citation: J Parasitol. 1995 Feb;81(1):48-53
references.pmid: 7876977