• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Evaluation of avian influenza serologic and virologic diagnostic methods in wild anseriformes and charadriiformes

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Avian Dis. 2014 Mar;58(1):53-9.
Evaluation of avian influenza serologic and virologic diagnostic methods in wild anseriformes and charadriiformes.
Curran JM, Robertson ID, Ellis TM, Selleck PW.
Abstract

Evaluation of avian influenza virus (AIV) diagnostic methods, including a nucleoprotein (NP) competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (c-ELISA), hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test, type A real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR), and embryonating chicken egg (ECE) virus isolation (VI), suggested validity of these tests in wild birds comparable to that reported in poultry. This was determined by analyzing the results from experimental inoculation of three species of wild birds with a low-pathogenicity AIV and from field surveillance data. The NP c-ELISA in a high-AIV prevalence setting had 100% diagnostic sensitivity (Se; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.5%-100%) and 91% diagnostic specificity (Sp; 95% CI: 70.8%-98.9%) in negative controls compared with the RRT-PCR. In low-AIV prevalence flocks using a > 60% inhibition positivity threshold, relative to the HI test, c-ELISA performed with 90.5% Se (95% CI: 86.2%-93.8%) and 41.2% Sp (95% CI: 38.1%-44.5%). Assessment of HI suggests a titer > or = 8 is a positive test result in wild-bird sera, and using this titer had 83.3% Se (95% CI: 58.6%-96.4%) in experimentally infected birds. The RRT-PCR diagnostic performance compared with VI in cloacal swabs varied over 2-6 days postinoculation, having high Se (83.3%-100%) and Sp (94.1%-100%) with substantial agreement (kappa = 0.8). The cycle thresholds (C(t)) for the RRT-PCR of C(t) < 37 for positivity and C(t) = 37-40 as indeterminate were found to be valid for the species included in this study. In view of the interpretative diagnostic difficulties in heterogeneous populations of wild birds, this evaluation in three species of wild birds and in surveillance data should provide greater confidence in the application of these methods routinely used in poultry.

PMID:
24758113
[PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758113
 
Back
Top Bottom