Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:32:48.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of radioimmunoassay with the complement fixation test and the indirect haemolysis test in the field diagnosis of bovine brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. J. Chappel  and
J. Hayes
R. J. Chappel
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickelham Road, Westmeadows 3047, Victoria, Australia
J. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickelham Road, Westmeadows 3047, Victoria, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sera were collected from female cattle in 118 commercial herds being subjected to a programme to eradicate brucellosis by test and slaughter, in an area in which vaccination of heifer calves with Brucella abortus strain 19 was compulsory. Of 4583 sera positive by the Rose Bengal plate test, the brucellosis radioimmunoassay was positive for 1524, the complement fixation test for 1363 and the indirect haemolysis test for 1141. These figures, and supporting evidence from the eradication programme, suggest that the radioimmunoassay may be a useful supplementary test in problem herds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 67 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

References

REFERENCES

Anon. (1977). Standardised complement fixation test for bovine brucellosis. Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anon. (1980). Standardised Rose Bengal test for bovine brucellosis. Australian Veterinary Journal 56, 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. L. (1965). Immunology and Serology, 2nd ed., p. 119. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Chappel, R. J., Hayes, J., Brain, G. J. & McNaught, D. J. (1982 a). A modified radioimmunoassay for antibodies against Brucella abortus. Journal of Hygiene 88, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappel, R. J., Hayes, J., Rogerson, B. A. & Shenfield, L. J. (1982 b). The serological response of cattle to vaccines against brucellosis, as measured by the brucellosis radioimmunoassay and other tests. Journal of Hygiene 88, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappel, R. J., McNaught, D. J., Bourke, J. A. & Allan, G. S. (1978). The diagnostic efficiency of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 80, 373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordes, D. O. & Carter, M. E. (1979). Persistence of Brucella abortus infection in six herds of cattle under brucellosis eradication. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 27, 255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, J. & Chappel, R. J. (1982). A comparison of the results of the brucellosis radioimmunoassay and other serological tests in experimentally infected cattle. Journal of Hygiene 88, 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plackett, P. & Alton, G. G. (1975). A mechanism for prozone formation in the complement fixation test for bovine brucellosis. Australian Veterinary Journal 51, 374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plackett, P., Cottew, G. S. & Best, S. J. (1976). An indirect haemolysis test (IHLT) for bovine brucellosis. Australian Veterinary Journal 52, 136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, M. R. & Halliday, R. (1980). The relationship between serum immunoglobulin levels and specific antibody production in cows. Research in Veterinary Science 28, 76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, M. R. & Millar, P. (1978). Changes in IgG2 levels with age in British cattle. Research in Veterinary Science 25, 82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed