Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:39:32.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of serological methods for the detection of B. abortus antibodies in sera from vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

F. C. Heck ,
J. D. Williams ,
R. P. Crawford  and
A. I. Flowers
F. C. Heck
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
J. D. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
R. P. Crawford
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
A. I. Flowers
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A total of 4551 sera from 863 Strain 19 vaccinated and non-vaccinated adult cattle, independent of disease status, were tested by five serological methods to detect the presence of antibodies to B. abortus. Results from Standard Agglutination Tube (SAT), Buffered Brucella Antigen or card (CT), Complement Fixation (CF), Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Rivanol (Riv) methods were compared.

There was a 95% probability for agreement among CT negative sera, between serological methods, for all groups of vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle. The agreement between tests with Riv Positive sera, excluding the calfhood and adult vaccinated group tested by the CF method, was 91–100%. The probability of a serum which was serologically negative by other methods being Riv negative was 98%. The usefulness of serological results from Riv (≥ 1/50) tests for classifying the reactor status of cattle are of doubtful supplemental value to confirm card test positive results.

Vaccination history is an important consideration when evaluating serological data on cattle sera particularly from SAT and CF methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 491 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

References

Allan, G. S., Chappel, R. J., Williamson, P. & Mcnaught, D. J. (1976). A quantitative comparison of the sensitivity of serological tests for bovine brucellosis to different antibody classes. Journal of Hygiene 76, 287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alton, G. G., Maw, J., Rogerson, B. A. & Mcpherson, G. G. (1975). The serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: an evaluation of the complement fixation, serum agglutination and Rose Bengal tests. Australian Veterinary Journal 51, 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J. E., Feldbush, T. L., McGwinn, P. L. & Stewart, A. (1978). Comparison of the results of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 80, 365.Google Scholar
Chappel, R. J., Mcnaught, D. J., Bourke, J. A. & Allan, G. S. (1978). The diagnostic efficiency of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 80, 373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, R. P., Heck, F. C. & Williams, J. D. (1978). Experiences with Brucella abortus strain 19 vaccine in adult Texas cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 173, 1457.Google Scholar
Davies, G.The Rose Bengal test. (1971). Veterinary Record 88, 447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, L. M., Hendricks, J. B. & Berman, D. T. (1963). The standardization and use of the Complement Fixation test for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis with a review of the literature. American Journal of Veterinary Research 24, 1143.Google ScholarPubMed
Morgan, W. J. B., Mackinnon, D. J. & Cullen, G. A. (1969). The Rose Bengal plate agglutination test in the diagnosis of brucellosis. Veterinary Record 85, 636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, W. J. B. & Richards, R. A. (1974). The diagnosis, control and eradication of bovine brucellosis in Great Britain. Veterinary Record 94, 510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoletti, P. (1969). Further evaluations of serologic test procedures used to diagnose brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 30, 1811.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicoletti, P. (1967). Utilization of the card test in brucellosis eradication. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 151, 1778.Google Scholar
O'reilly, D. J. & Cunningham, B. (1971). An assessment of the brucellosis card test. Veterinary Record 88, 590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, J. M., Deyoe, B. L. & Stone, S. S. (1976). Identification of immunoglobulins associated with complement fixation, agglutination and low pH buffered antigen tests for brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 37, 319.Google Scholar
Rose, J. E. & Roepke, M. H. (1957). An acidified antigen for detection of nonspecific reactions in the plate agglutination test for bovine brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 18, 550.Google ScholarPubMed
Saunders, G. C. (1977). Development and evaluation of an enzyme labelled antibody test for the rapid detection of hog cholera antibodies. American Journal of Veterinary Research 38, 21.Google ScholarPubMed
Timbs, D. V., Digby, J. G. & Doe, I. (1978). The relationship between the brucellosis card test and the complement fixation test used in the brucellosis eradication scheme. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 26, 41.Google ScholarPubMed
U.S.D.A., A.R.S., National Animal Disease Laboratory, Diagnostic Reagents Manual 65D. Animal Health Division, Diagnostic Services, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar