Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:37:39.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the results of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. J. Chappel ,
D. J. McNaught ,
J. A. Bourke  and
G. S. Allan
R. J. Chappel
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Westmeadows, Victoria 3047, Australia
D. J. McNaught
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Westmeadows, Victoria 3047, Australia
J. A. Bourke
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Westmeadows, Victoria 3047, Australia
G. S. Allan
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Westmeadows, Victoria 3047, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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 1887 bovine sera positive to the Rose Bengal plate test were subjected to other serological tests for bovine brucellosis: the complement fixation test using warm fixation (CFTW), the serum agglutination test (SAT) and the radioimmunoassay (RIA).

The SAT was generally much less sensitive than the CFTW. Many sera, however, gave positive reactions in the SAT but no reaction in the CFTW or the RIA. These SAT reactions were attributed to IgM antibody.

Comparison between the results of the CFTW and the RIA led to the conclusion that 200 ng could be used as a minimum diagnostic reaction in the RIA.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , June 1978 , pp. 365 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

References

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., Jones, L. M. & Pietz, D. E. (1975 a). Laboratory Techniques in Brucellosis, 2nd ed. World Health Organization Monograph Series, no. 55. Geneva.Google ScholarPubMed
Alton, G. G., Maw, J., Rogerson, B. A. & McPherson, G. G. (1975 b). 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
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
Chappel, R. J., Williamson, P., McNaught, D. J., Dalling, M. J. & Allan, G. S. (1976). Radioimmunoassay for antibodies against Brucella abortus: a new serological test for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 77, 369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elberg, S. S. (1973). Immunity to Brucella infection. Medicine, Baltimore 52, 339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, W. J. B., MacKinnon, D. J. & Cullan, G. A. (1969). The Rose Bengal plate agglutination test in the diagnosis of brucellosis. Veterinary Record 85, 636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoletti, P. (1967). Utilization of the card test in brucellosis eradication. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 151, 1778.Google Scholar