Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T05:54:45.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The diagnostic efficiency of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. J. Chappel ,
D. J. McNaught ,
J. A. Bourke  and
G. S. Allan
R. J. Chappel
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Victoria 3047, Australia
D. J. McNaught
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Victoria 3047, Australia
J. A. Bourke
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Victoria 3047, Australia
G. S. Allan
Affiliation:
‘Attwood’ Veterinary Research Laboratory, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Victoria 3047, 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.

Results obtained from 1887 sera using three serological tests for bovine brucellosis were compared with a serological classification of sera described as the ‘probable infection status’. Sera showing apparent false positive and apparent false negative reactions were identified, and were subjected to supplementary testing as appropriate.

The serum agglutination test (SAT) gave 35% apparent false negative reactions and 5% apparent false positives. The complement fixation test (CFT) gave 12% apparent false negative reactions using warm fixation (CFTW) and at least 5% using cold fixation (CFTC). The routine diagnostic system used in Victoria, in which the CFTW is supplemented by the CFTC and the SAT, gave 9% apparent false negative reactions and 2% apparent false positive reactions. The radioimmunoassay gave 1% or 6% apparent false negative reactions, depending the minimum diagnostic value used.

Atypical reactions in the CFT sometimes caused difficulties in diagnosis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , June 1978 , pp. 373 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

References

REFERENCE

Alton, G. G., Jones, L. M. & Pietz, D. E. (1975 a). Laboratory Techniques in Brucellosis, 2nd ed. World Health Organization Monograph Series, no. 55. Geneva.Google ScholarPubMed
Alton, G. G., Maw, J, Rogerson, B. A. & McPherson, G. G. (1975 b). The serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: an evaluation of the complement fixation, serum agglutination and Rose Bengal tests. Australian Veterinary Journal 51, 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappel, R. J., McNaught, D. J., Bourke, J. A. & Allan, G. S. (1978). Comparison of the results of some serological tests for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 80, 365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappel, R. J., Williamson, P., McNaught, D. J., Dalling, M. J. & Allan, G. S. (1976). Radioimmunoassay for antibodies against Brucella abortus: a new serological test for bovine brucellosis. Journal of Hygiene 77, 369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elberg, S. S. (1973). Immunity to Brucella infection. Medicine, Baltimore 52, 339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. M. (1969). Brucellosis. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 18, suppl. 2, 33.Google ScholarPubMed
McNaught, D. J., Chappel, R. J., Allan, G. S., Bourke, J. A. & Rogerson, B. A. (1977). The effects of IgG2 and of antigen concentration on prozoning in the complement fixation test for bovine brucellosis. Research in Veterinary Science 22, 194.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar