Williams J D, Heck F C, Davis D S, Adams L G
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843.
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1991 Aug;29(1-2):79-87. doi: 10.1016/0165-2427(91)90054-g.
A total of 423 serum samples representing 94 coyotes which were wild trapped in east Texas were used to compare the serologic results from five different methods for detecting antibodies to Brucella abortus. The sera were tested for Brucella spp. antibody activity by the Card (CARD), rivanol precipitation (RIV), standard agglutination tube (SAT), cold complement fixation test (CF), and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods. Each serum sample selected for this comparison demonstrated antibody activity by one or more of the five serologic methods. When the serologic results of the five different methods were compared, 143 sera were positive according to the CF test and agreement was 67.1-70.6% with CARD, RIV and SAT. The maximum agreement for CF positive was with CARD (70.6%) and the lowest agreement fro CF negative was also with CARD (56.4%). Agreement among the serologic methods for the SAT positive ranged from 69.1% (CARD) to 72.7% (RIV). Agreement between SAT and ELISA was poor with only 38.1% agreement for SAT positive and 11.3% agreement for SAT negative. Agreement between methods for CARD positive sera was poor, with a low of 43% for both SAT and ELISA, and a high of 55.6% for RIV. Agreement between methods for 149 RIV positive sera was 83.2% for CARD, 67.8% for SAT, 64.4% for CF and only 50.3% for ELISA. Agreement between methods for ELISA positive results ranged from 49.0% for RIV to 62.7% for CARD.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
共有423份血清样本,代表94只在东得克萨斯州野外捕获的郊狼,用于比较五种不同方法检测布鲁氏菌流产抗体的血清学结果。通过卡片凝集试验(CARD)、利凡诺沉淀试验(RIV)、标准凝集试管试验(SAT)、冷补体结合试验(CF)和酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)检测血清中的布鲁氏菌属抗体活性。本次比较所选的每份血清样本通过五种血清学方法中的一种或多种表现出抗体活性。比较五种不同方法的血清学结果时,CF试验显示143份血清呈阳性,与CARD、RIV和SAT的一致性为67.1%-70.6%。CF阳性的最大一致性是与CARD(70.6%),CF阴性的最低一致性也是与CARD(56.4%)。SAT阳性的血清学方法之间的一致性范围为69.1%(CARD)至72.7%(RIV)。SAT和ELISA之间的一致性较差,SAT阳性的一致性仅为38.1%,SAT阴性的一致性为11.3%。CARD阳性血清的方法之间一致性较差,SAT和ELISA的一致性低至43%,RIV的一致性高至55.6%。149份RIV阳性血清的方法之间的一致性,CARD为83.2%,SAT为67.8%,CF为64.4%,ELISA仅为50.3%。ELISA阳性结果的方法之间的一致性范围为RIV的49.0%至CARD的62.7%。(摘要截短为250字)