File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Comparative evaluation of a point-of-care immunochromatographic test SNAP 4Dx with molecular detection tests for vector-borne canine pathogens in Hong Kong
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleComparative evaluation of a point-of-care immunochromatographic test SNAP 4Dx with molecular detection tests for vector-borne canine pathogens in Hong Kong
 
AuthorsWong, SSY2
Teng, JLL2
Poon, RWS2
Choi, GKY2
Chan, KH2
Yeung, ML1
Hui, JJY3
Yuen, KY2
 
KeywordsAnaplasma Platys
Babesia
Dirofilaria Immitis
Ehrlichia
Wolbachia
 
Issue Date2011
 
PublisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.liebertpub.com/vbz
 
CitationVector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases, 2011, v. 11 n. 9, p. 1269-1277 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2010.0265
 
AbstractThere are no comprehensive studies on the performance of commonly used point-of-care diagnostic enzyme immunoassay for common arthropod-borne canine pathogens. A comparative evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for these infections with a comprehensive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test panel was performed on 100 pet dogs and 100 stray dogs without obvious clinical symptoms. Of the 162 positive test results from both immunochromatographic test and PCR, there was 85.2% concordance. The 24 discordant results between serology and PCR occurred in tests involving Ehrlichia canis (14) and Anaplasma platys (10), which may be related to the time of infection. No positive cases of borreliosis or rickettsiosis were detected. One important limitation of the immunochromatographic test was its lack of testing for babesiosis and hepatozoonosis. The former is the most prevalent arthropod-borne canine infection in our cohort (41%). Coinfections were found in 19% stray dogs and 6% of pet dogs with both tests (p<0.01). Seventeen and 8 samples from stray and pet dogs, respectively, were initially positive in the PCR test for Ehrlichia. However, on sequencing of the PCR amplicon, 10 from stray and 2 from pet dogs were found to be Wolbachia sequences instead, with 100% nucleotide identity to the 16S rRNA sequence of Wolbachia endosymbiont of Dirofilaria immitis. The presence of Wolbachia DNAemia (6%) correlated well with the molecular test and immunochromatographic antigen test for D. immitis. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
 
ISSN1530-3667
2013 Impact Factor: 2.531
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.172
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2010.0265
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000294769900007
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorWong, SSY
 
dc.contributor.authorTeng, JLL
 
dc.contributor.authorPoon, RWS
 
dc.contributor.authorChoi, GKY
 
dc.contributor.authorChan, KH
 
dc.contributor.authorYeung, ML
 
dc.contributor.authorHui, JJY
 
dc.contributor.authorYuen, KY
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:51:53Z
 
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:51:53Z
 
dc.date.issued2011
 
dc.description.abstractThere are no comprehensive studies on the performance of commonly used point-of-care diagnostic enzyme immunoassay for common arthropod-borne canine pathogens. A comparative evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for these infections with a comprehensive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test panel was performed on 100 pet dogs and 100 stray dogs without obvious clinical symptoms. Of the 162 positive test results from both immunochromatographic test and PCR, there was 85.2% concordance. The 24 discordant results between serology and PCR occurred in tests involving Ehrlichia canis (14) and Anaplasma platys (10), which may be related to the time of infection. No positive cases of borreliosis or rickettsiosis were detected. One important limitation of the immunochromatographic test was its lack of testing for babesiosis and hepatozoonosis. The former is the most prevalent arthropod-borne canine infection in our cohort (41%). Coinfections were found in 19% stray dogs and 6% of pet dogs with both tests (p<0.01). Seventeen and 8 samples from stray and pet dogs, respectively, were initially positive in the PCR test for Ehrlichia. However, on sequencing of the PCR amplicon, 10 from stray and 2 from pet dogs were found to be Wolbachia sequences instead, with 100% nucleotide identity to the 16S rRNA sequence of Wolbachia endosymbiont of Dirofilaria immitis. The presence of Wolbachia DNAemia (6%) correlated well with the molecular test and immunochromatographic antigen test for D. immitis. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
 
dc.description.naturePublished_or_final_version
 
dc.identifier.citationVector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases, 2011, v. 11 n. 9, p. 1269-1277 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2010.0265
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2010.0265
 
dc.identifier.eissn1557-7759
 
dc.identifier.epage1277
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000294769900007
 
dc.identifier.issn1530-3667
2013 Impact Factor: 2.531
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.172
 
dc.identifier.issue9
 
dc.identifier.pmid21612526
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-80052323115
 
dc.identifier.spage1269
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/157642
 
dc.identifier.volume11
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.liebertpub.com/vbz
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License
 
dc.rightsThis is a copy of an article published in the [Vector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases] © [2011] [copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.]; [Vector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases] is available online at: http://www.liebertonline.com.
 
dc.subjectAnaplasma Platys
 
dc.subjectBabesia
 
dc.subjectDirofilaria Immitis
 
dc.subjectEhrlichia
 
dc.subjectWolbachia
 
dc.titleComparative evaluation of a point-of-care immunochromatographic test SNAP 4Dx with molecular detection tests for vector-borne canine pathogens in Hong Kong
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Wong, SSY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Teng, JLL</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Poon, RWS</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Choi, GKY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chan, KH</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Yeung, ML</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Hui, JJY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Yuen, KY</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-08-08T08:51:53Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-08-08T08:51:53Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2011</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Vector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases, 2011, v. 11 n. 9, p. 1269-1277</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>1530-3667</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/157642</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>There are no comprehensive studies on the performance of commonly used point-of-care diagnostic enzyme immunoassay for common arthropod-borne canine pathogens. A comparative evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for these infections with a comprehensive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test panel was performed on 100 pet dogs and 100 stray dogs without obvious clinical symptoms. Of the 162 positive test results from both immunochromatographic test and PCR, there was 85.2% concordance. The 24 discordant results between serology and PCR occurred in tests involving Ehrlichia canis (14) and Anaplasma platys (10), which may be related to the time of infection. No positive cases of borreliosis or rickettsiosis were detected. One important limitation of the immunochromatographic test was its lack of testing for babesiosis and hepatozoonosis. The former is the most prevalent arthropod-borne canine infection in our cohort (41%). Coinfections were found in 19% stray dogs and 6% of pet dogs with both tests (p&lt;0.01). Seventeen and 8 samples from stray and pet dogs, respectively, were initially positive in the PCR test for Ehrlichia. However, on sequencing of the PCR amplicon, 10 from stray and 2 from pet dogs were found to be Wolbachia sequences instead, with 100% nucleotide identity to the 16S rRNA sequence of Wolbachia endosymbiont of Dirofilaria immitis. The presence of Wolbachia DNAemia (6%) correlated well with the molecular test and immunochromatographic antigen test for D. immitis. &#169; Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Mary Ann Liebert, Inc Publishers. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.liebertpub.com/vbz</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases</relation.ispartof>
<rights>Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License</rights>
<rights>This is a copy of an article published in the [Vector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases] &#169; [2011] [copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.]; [Vector-Borne And Zoonotic Diseases] is available online at: http://www.liebertonline.com.</rights>
<subject>Anaplasma Platys</subject>
<subject>Babesia</subject>
<subject>Dirofilaria Immitis</subject>
<subject>Ehrlichia</subject>
<subject>Wolbachia</subject>
<title>Comparative evaluation of a point-of-care immunochromatographic test SNAP 4Dx with molecular detection tests for vector-borne canine pathogens in Hong Kong</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Published_or_final_version</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1089/vbz.2010.0265</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>21612526</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-80052323115</identifier.scopus>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-80052323115&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>11</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>9</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>1269</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>1277</identifier.epage>
<identifier.eissn>1557-7759</identifier.eissn>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000294769900007</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<bitstream.url>http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/157642/1/content.pdf</bitstream.url>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Fisheries and Conservation Department
  2. The University of Hong Kong
  3. null