Laboratory Animals > Volume 34, Number 3 > Pp. 281-289

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Boot, R. Articles by Thuis, H. C. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Papers

Comparison of assays for antibodies to Encephalitozoon cuniculi in rabbits

R. Boot, A. K. Hansen, C. K. Hansen, N. Nozari and H. C. W. Thuis

Section of Laboratory Animal Microbiology, LIS, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Department of Experimental Medicine, The Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen and National University Hospital, Denmark; Division of Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare, Department of Pharmacology and Pathobiology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark; Mathematics Department, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, USA; Section of Laboratory Animal Microbiology, LIS, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Two indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) assays, two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)and the carbon immunoassay (CIA) for determination of antibodies to Encephalitozoon cuniculi were compared using 210 sera of rabbits, 135 of which originated from seven infected colonies, while 75 originated from four uninfected colonies. There was no evidence of a difference between the different assays with respect to the number of positive sera. There was a clear correlation between the quantitative response measured by IIF and CIA and the other assays, and between both IIF tests, while no such correlation was found in the quantitative response measured by ELISAs, which might be explained by the less quantitative nature of the ELISA. Therefore quantitative determination of antibodies to E. cuniculi should be performed by IIF and not by ELISA. The nosographic sensitivities N₁ and specificities N₂ of the assays were 0.94 and 0.97 respectively. Small differences in N₁ and N₂ between the assays, although not statistically significant, were responsible for differences in the calculated predictive values of a positive test and of a negative test. As expected, the magnitude of these differences depended on the fraction of positive sera sampled from a given colony. There was strong evidence of such a difference between the fraction of positive sera found in different colonies, but the sample size from some colonies was too small to allow any conclusion, whether this was due to differences in the prevalences of the infection in the colonies or something else. We conclude that any of the assays will be suitable for the routine health monitoring of laboratory rabbit colonies for E. cuniculi infection, as recommended by the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations.

Key Words: ENCEPHALITOZOON CUNCICULI • SEROLOGY • HEALTH MONITORING • RABBITS

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?