Sherman D M, Gay J M, Bouley D S, Nelson G H
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul 55108.
Am J Vet Res. 1990 Mar;51(3):461-5.
The performance of the serum complement fixation (CF) test was compared with that of a serum agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test on 74 subclinically infected and 154 uninfected cattle in 6 commercial midwestern dairy herds with Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infection and on 30 cattle in a herd that was free of infection. Infection status of cattle within herds was established by performance of a series of 3 or more fecal cultures and of ileocecal lymph node cultures of culled cattle. In cattle with subclinical infection detected by culturing, the sensitivity estimates of the CF and AGID tests were 10.8% (3.6% SE) and 18.9% (4.5% SE), respectively. In the cattle classified as disease free, the specificity estimates of the CF and AGID tests were 97.4% (1.3% SE) and 99.4% (0.6% SE), respectively. Neither set of estimates was significantly different. Negative test results obtained with the use of either test in apparently normal cattle from suspect herds should be interpreted with caution because both tests suffer from low sensitivities in subclinically infected animals. However, the AGID test may be more useful in regulatory situations in which the CF test is currently used because the AGID test is easier to perform and to interpret.
在中西部6个商业奶牛场中,对74头亚临床感染和154头未感染副结核分枝杆菌的奶牛,以及在1个无感染牛群中的30头牛,比较了血清补体结合(CF)试验和血清琼脂凝胶免疫扩散(AGID)试验的性能。通过对淘汰牛进行一系列3次或更多次粪便培养和回盲部淋巴结培养来确定牛群中牛的感染状况。在通过培养检测出亚临床感染的牛中,CF试验和AGID试验的敏感性估计分别为10.8%(标准误3.6%)和18.9%(标准误4.5%)。在被分类为无病的牛中,CF试验和AGID试验的特异性估计分别为97.4%(标准误1.3%)和99.4%(标准误0.6%)。两组估计值均无显著差异。在疑似牛群中表面正常的牛使用任何一种试验获得的阴性试验结果都应谨慎解释,因为两种试验在亚临床感染动物中敏感性都较低。然而,AGID试验在目前使用CF试验的监管情况下可能更有用,因为AGID试验更容易操作和解释。