Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs
Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus is an emerging pathogen that causes severe infections in humans. Infection risk areas are mostly defined based on the incidence of human cases, a method which does not work well in areas with sporadic TBE cases. Thus, sentinel animals may help to better estimate t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-02-01
|
| Series: | Microorganisms |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/2/399 |
| _version_ | 1797396521365274624 |
|---|---|
| author | Philipp Girl Maja Haut Sandra Riederer Martin Pfeffer Gerhard Dobler |
| author_facet | Philipp Girl Maja Haut Sandra Riederer Martin Pfeffer Gerhard Dobler |
| author_sort | Philipp Girl |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus is an emerging pathogen that causes severe infections in humans. Infection risk areas are mostly defined based on the incidence of human cases, a method which does not work well in areas with sporadic TBE cases. Thus, sentinel animals may help to better estimate the existing risk. Serological tests should be thoroughly evaluated for this purpose. Here, we tested three test formats to assess the use of dogs as sentinel animals. A total of 208 dog sera from a known endemic area in Southern Germany were tested in an All-Species-ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence assays (IIFA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sensitivity and specificity for both were determined in comparison to the micro-neutralization test (NT) results. Of all 208 samples, 22.1% tested positive in the micro-NT. A total of 18.3% of the samples showed characteristic fluorescence in the IIFA and were, thus, judged positive. In comparison to the micro-NT, a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 98.8% was obtained. In the ELISA, 19.2% of samples tested positive, with a sensitivity of 84.8% and a specificity of 99.4%. The ELISA is a highly specific test for TBE-antibody detection in dogs and should be well suited for acute diagnostics. However, due to deficits in sensitivity, it cannot replace the NT, at least for epidemiological studies. With even lower specificity and sensitivity, the same applies to IIFA. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T00:51:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6c319eab7d2a4e679d304f47927a410d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2607 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T00:51:30Z |
| publishDate | 2021-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microorganisms |
| spelling | doaj.art-6c319eab7d2a4e679d304f47927a410d2023-12-11T17:09:12ZengMDPI AGMicroorganisms2076-26072021-02-019239910.3390/microorganisms9020399Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in DogsPhilipp Girl0Maja Haut1Sandra Riederer2Martin Pfeffer3Gerhard Dobler4 Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, D-80937 Munich, Germany Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, D-80937 Munich, GermanyTick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus is an emerging pathogen that causes severe infections in humans. Infection risk areas are mostly defined based on the incidence of human cases, a method which does not work well in areas with sporadic TBE cases. Thus, sentinel animals may help to better estimate the existing risk. Serological tests should be thoroughly evaluated for this purpose. Here, we tested three test formats to assess the use of dogs as sentinel animals. A total of 208 dog sera from a known endemic area in Southern Germany were tested in an All-Species-ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence assays (IIFA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sensitivity and specificity for both were determined in comparison to the micro-neutralization test (NT) results. Of all 208 samples, 22.1% tested positive in the micro-NT. A total of 18.3% of the samples showed characteristic fluorescence in the IIFA and were, thus, judged positive. In comparison to the micro-NT, a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 98.8% was obtained. In the ELISA, 19.2% of samples tested positive, with a sensitivity of 84.8% and a specificity of 99.4%. The ELISA is a highly specific test for TBE-antibody detection in dogs and should be well suited for acute diagnostics. However, due to deficits in sensitivity, it cannot replace the NT, at least for epidemiological studies. With even lower specificity and sensitivity, the same applies to IIFA.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/2/399TBEVseroprevalencedogELISAIIFAmicro-NT |
| spellingShingle | Philipp Girl Maja Haut Sandra Riederer Martin Pfeffer Gerhard Dobler Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs Microorganisms TBEV seroprevalence dog ELISA IIFA micro-NT |
| title | Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs |
| title_full | Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs |
| title_short | Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs |
| title_sort | comparison of three serological methods for the epidemiological investigation of tbe in dogs |
| topic | TBEV seroprevalence dog ELISA IIFA micro-NT |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/2/399 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philippgirl comparisonofthreeserologicalmethodsfortheepidemiologicalinvestigationoftbeindogs AT majahaut comparisonofthreeserologicalmethodsfortheepidemiologicalinvestigationoftbeindogs AT sandrariederer comparisonofthreeserologicalmethodsfortheepidemiologicalinvestigationoftbeindogs AT martinpfeffer comparisonofthreeserologicalmethodsfortheepidemiologicalinvestigationoftbeindogs AT gerharddobler comparisonofthreeserologicalmethodsfortheepidemiologicalinvestigationoftbeindogs |