Comparison of tissues (heart vs. brain) and serological tests (MAT, ELISA and IFAT) for detection of in naturally infected wolverines () from the Yukon, Canada.

Toxoplasmosis is an important parasitic zoonosis worldwide. Many human and animal surveys use serological assays based on antibody detection in serum, a matrix that is not routinely available from wildlife. Commonly used serological assays have rarely been validated for use with fluids other than serum, nor validated for their performance in wildlife species. New molecular assays, such as magnetic capture DNA extraction and real-time PCR (MC-qPCR), offer high sensitivity for detection of DNA in tissues. The aims of this study were to (1) assess prevalence of DNA based on MC-qPCR detection in brain and heart of naturally infected wolverines () from the Yukon, Canada (2) compare two matrices [heart fluid (collected from thawed heart) and filter eluate (eluted from blood soaked filter paper)] for antibody detection in the same species, and (3) evaluate the performance of three serological tests [modified agglutination test (MAT), enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT)] to detect naturally infected wolverines as determined by MC-qPCR. DNA of was detected in heart and/or brain in 16 of 68 wolverines (24%, 95% CI: 15.0-34.8). Tissue prevalence and infection intensity was higher in heart [16 positives, mediantachyzoites equivalents per gram (TEG) =1221] compared to brain (10 positives, median TEG = 347). Heart fluid (HF) and filter eluates (FE) performed equally well in ELISA and IFAT in terms of relative sensitivity, but HF performed better with MAT. ELISA and IFAT had higher relative sensitivity (94%) and relative specificity (100%) compared to MAT (relative sensitivity 75% and relative specificity 92%). Overall, our findings indicate that the parasite burden in naturally infected wolverines was higher in heart compared to brain, heart fluid performed better than filter paper eluate for serological testing using MAT, and both IFAT and ELISA had higher relative sensitivity, relative specificity, and accuracy compared to MAT.