Evaluation and comparison of performances of six commercial NSP ELISA assays for foot and mouth disease virus in Thailand.
Animals
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
/ methods
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus
/ immunology
Thailand
/ epidemiology
Foot-and-Mouth Disease
/ diagnosis
Cattle
Viral Nonstructural Proteins
/ immunology
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
Swine
Buffaloes
Sensitivity and Specificity
Cattle Diseases
/ diagnosis
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
Antibody
ELISA
Foot-and-mouth disease virus
Non-structural protein
Thailand
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2024
14 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
29
05
2024
accepted:
08
10
2024
medline:
14
10
2024
pubmed:
14
10
2024
entrez:
13
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
ELISA kits that detect antibodies to the non-structural protein (NSP) of the foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), commonly referred to as NSP-ELISA, can distinguish between vaccinated and naturally infected animals. They can play an essential role in demonstrating 'proof-of-freedom' during the control of FMD. Although various NSP-ELISA kits are available in Thailand, information regarding their performance is lacking. To select the most appropriate NSP-ELISA kit for our specific purpose, we must compare their performance using carefully characterized sera. This will ensure that we maximize the benefits of our testing. In this study, six NSP-ELISA kits sold in Thailand-Biovet, ID Screen, VDPro, IDEXX, PrioCHECK, and KUcheck-F-were evaluated and compared. A total of 800 serum samples were examined, including samples from 357 cattle and 29 buffaloes in outbreak areas, as well as 14 swine serum samples from the Vaccine Quality Control Unit of the Bureau of Veterinary Biologics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Thailand. Four hundred samples were confirmed to originate from animals infected with FMDV through ELISA typing (n = 11, tested as representative samples in each farm) and/or RT-PCR (n = 400, all samples), serving as positive control sera. Additionally, 400 negative control sera were obtained from Japan (97 cattle and 300 pigs) and Australia (3 goats), certified by the World Organisation for Animal Health as 'free of FMD'. The sensitivity and specificity of the six tests were determined based on the results obtained from two-by-two tables. Cohen's kappa statistics were calculated for the six tests to assess their concordance, and the diagnostic accuracy of the assays was also determined. For all six NSP-ELISA kits, the sensitivity ranged from 97.75 to 99.50%, and the specificity ranged from 97.25 to 100%. Cohen's kappa statistics ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, and diagnostic accuracy ranged from 98.13 to 99.75%. The study results indicated that the test kits have statistically similar sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and diagnostic accuracy, suggesting they can be used interchangeably. However, ID Screen demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity among all kits tested. Therefore, if a single kit were to be selected from the six evaluated, ID Screen would be the most appropriate choice. These findings can aid in selecting the most suitable test kit. Therefore, it is recommended to consider purchasing a diverse range of effective test kits. Furthermore, these findings can provide guidance for expanding the use of test kits, particularly with the growing availability of NSP-ELISA kits in the market.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39397089
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-75793-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-75793-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Viral Nonstructural Proteins
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23958Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
ID : 23828070
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Diaz-San Segundo, F., Medina, G. N., Stenfeldt, C. & Arzt, J. De Los Santos, T. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Vet. Microbiol. 206, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.12.018 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.12.018
pubmed: 28040311
King, D., Di Nardo, A. & Henstock, M. WOAH/FAO Foot-and-Mouth Disease Reference Laboratory Network Annual Report 2022. (2022). https://www.wrlfmd.org/sites/world/files/quick_media/WOAH-FAO%20FMD%20Ref%20Lab%20Network%20Report%202022.pdf
James, A. D. & Rushton, J. The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev. Sci. Tech. 21, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.21.3.1356 (2002).
doi: 10.20506/rst.21.3.1356
pubmed: 12523703
Erdem, A. E. & Sareyyüpoğlu, B. DIVA (differentiating infected from vaccinated animals) vaccines and strategies. Etlik Vet. Mikrobiyol Derg. 33, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.35864/evmd.932993 (2022).
doi: 10.35864/evmd.932993
Doel, T. R. FMD vaccines. Virus Res. 91, 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00261-7 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00261-7
pubmed: 12527439
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The progressive control pathway for foot and mouth disease control (PCP-FMD). principles, stage descriptions and standards. (2018). https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gf-tads/docs/PCP_guidelines_Final.pdf
World Organization for Animal Health. SEACFMD Roadmap 2021–2025. https://rr-asia.woah.org/app/uploads/2022/05/seacfmd-roadmap-2021-2025.pdf (2022).
Chanchaidechachai, T. et al. P. Epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Thailand from 2011 to 2018. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 3823–3836. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14754 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/tbed.14754
pubmed: 36321258
pmcid: 10100504
Arjkumpa, O. et al. Spatiotemporal analyses of foot and mouth disease outbreaks in cattle farms in Chiang Mai and Lamphun, Thailand. BMC Vet. Res. 16, 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02392-6 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02392-6
pubmed: 32487166
pmcid: 7268379
Arjkumpa, O., Yano, T., Prakotcheo, R., Sansamur, C. & Punyapornwithaya, V. Epidemiology and national surveillance system for foot and mouth disease in cattle in Thailand during 2008–2019. Vet. Sci. 7, 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci7030099 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/vetsci7030099
pubmed: 32722145
pmcid: 7558286
Yano, T., Premashthira, S., Dejyong, T., Tangtrongsup, S. & Salman, M. D. The effectiveness of a foot and mouth disease outbreak control programme in Thailand 2008–2015: case studies and lessons learned. Vet. Sci. 5, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5040101 (2018).
doi: 10.3390/vetsci5040101
pubmed: 30563300
pmcid: 6313864
Sangaprakhon, C., Auonpromma, D. & Keenia, K. A study on non-structural protein contamination in foot and mouth disease vaccine. J. Vet. Biol. 21, 48–60 (2012).
Mackay, D. K. J. et al. Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease using by panel of recombinant, non-structural proteins in ELISA. Vaccine. 16, 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(97)00227-2 (1998).
doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(97)00227-2
pubmed: 9491499
The National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Diagnosis of foot and mouth disease. Thai agricultural standard TAS 10400-2012. (2012). https://www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/DIAGNOSIS_OF_FOOT_AND_MOUTH_DISEASE.pdf
Linchongsubongkoch, W., Aunpomma, D. & Thongtha, T. The use of various non structural protein kits to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals with foot and mouth disease virus. J. Thai Vet. Med. Assoc. 55, 21–28 (2004).
World Organisation for Animal Health. Chapter 1.1.6. Validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases of terrestrial animals. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, twelfth edition 2023. (2023). https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/1.01.06_VALIDATION.pdf
Roeder, P. L. & Le Blanc Smith, P. M. Detection and typing of foot-and-mouth disease virus by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: a sensitive, rapid and reliable technique for primary diagnosis. Res. Vet. Sci. 43, 225–232 (1987).
doi: 10.1016/S0034-5288(18)30778-1
pubmed: 2825310
World Organisation for Animal Health. Chapter 3.1.8. Foot and mouth disease (infection with foot and mouth disease virus). Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, twelfth edition 2023. (2023). https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.01.08_FMD.pdf
World Organisation for Animal Health. Recognition of the foot and mouth disease status of members. Resolution No. 11. 90th General Session. (2023). https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2023/05/a-r11-2023-fmd-1.pdf
Bruderer, U. et al. Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease: evaluation of an ELISA based on recombinant 3ABC. Vet. Microbiol. 101, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.01.021 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.01.021
pubmed: 15223123
Sørensen, K. J., de Stricker, K., Dyrting, K. C., Grazioli, S. & Haas, B. Differentiation of foot-and-mouth disease virus infected animals from vaccinated animals using a blocking ELISA based on baculovirus expressed FMDV 3ABC antigen and a 3ABC monoclonal antibody. Arch. Virol. 150, 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-004-0455-z (2005).
doi: 10.1007/s00705-004-0455-z
pubmed: 15645377
Srisombundit, V. et al. Development of an inactivated 3C
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2012.12.016
pubmed: 23305815
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33, 159–174 (1977).
doi: 10.2307/2529310
pubmed: 843571
Liu, W. et al. Development of a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay using a monoclonal antibody recognizing 3B of foot-and-mouth disease virus for the rapid detection of antibodies induced by FMDV infection. Virol. J. 18, 193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01663-4 (2021).
doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01663-4
pubmed: 34565393
pmcid: 8474858
Daniel Maxim, L., Niebo, R. & Utell, M. J. Screening tests: a review with examples. Inhal Toxicol. 26, 811–828. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2014.955932 (2014).
doi: 10.3109/08958378.2014.955932
pubmed: 25264934
pmcid: 4389712
Brocchi, E. et al. Comparative evaluation of six ELISAs for the detection of antibodies to the non-structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine. 24, 6966–6979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.04.050 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.04.050
pubmed: 16753241
Singh, R. K. et al. Foot-and-mouth disease virus: immunology, advances in vaccines and vaccination strategies addressing vaccine failures–an Indian perspective. Vaccines. 7, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines7030090 (2019).
doi: 10.3390/vaccines7030090
pubmed: 31426368
pmcid: 6789522