File Download
  • No File Attached
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Performance evaluation of five detection tests for avian influenza antigen with various avian samples
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitlePerformance evaluation of five detection tests for avian influenza antigen with various avian samples
 
AuthorsChua, TH1 9
Ellis, TM1
Wong, CW8
Guan, Y4 3
Sheng, XG3
Peng, G3
Lamichhane, C10
Maliadis, C5
Tan, SW6
Selleck, P7
Parkinson, J2
 
KeywordsAntigen test
ELISA
H5N1 avian influenza
Immunochromatographic test
Poultry
Waterfowl
 
Issue Date2007
 
PublisherAmerican Association of Avian Pathologists, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://avdi.allenpress.com/avdionline/?request=index-html
 
CitationAvian Diseases, 2007, v. 51 n. 1, p. 96-105 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2
 
AbstractIn this paper, we report on the evaluation of five influenza antigen detection tests by avian influenza H5N1 virus-positive swab samples to estimate their diagnostic sensitivity. The tests included two chromatographic immunoassays, an H5 avian influenza-specific antigen detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an influenza Aantigen detection ELISA, and an H5 rapid immunoblot assay. The results showed that the overall sensitivities of these tests ranged from 36.3% to 51.4% (95% confidence interval ranging from 31.0% to 57.0%), which were comparable to Directigen™ Flu A antigen detection tests but substantially lower than genome detection methods. Diagnostic sensitivity performance is a function of the concentration of antigens in samples and the analytical sensitivity of the individual test. The test sensitivities were significantly higher for sick and dead birds by cloacal, tracheal, or tissue swabs than for fecal swabs from apparently healthy birds, and these tests would not be suitable for surveillance testing of clinically healthy birds. Furthermore, the sensitivity for testing tracheal and cloacal swabs from waterfowl and wild birds was not as good as for chickens. This was most likely to be associated with variation in virus titers between specimens from different bird species. However, the tests showed good sensitivities for testing brain swabs from clinically affected waterfowl species. The results indicate that these antigen detection tests could be used for preliminary investigations of H5N1 outbreaks as a low-cost, simple flock test in sick and dead birds for the rapid detection of H5N1 infection. However, the relatively low sensitivity of the tests as individual bird tests means that they should be used on optimal clinical specimens from diseased birds, testing birds on a flock basis, or testing samples as close to the onset of disease as possible before viral titers diminish. They should be followed up by confirmatory tests, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or viral culture, wherever possible but could assist in facilitating rapid investigations and control interventions.
 
ISSN0005-2086
2013 Impact Factor: 1.107
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.820
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000245372100015
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorChua, TH
 
dc.contributor.authorEllis, TM
 
dc.contributor.authorWong, CW
 
dc.contributor.authorGuan, Y
 
dc.contributor.authorSheng, XG
 
dc.contributor.authorPeng, G
 
dc.contributor.authorLamichhane, C
 
dc.contributor.authorMaliadis, C
 
dc.contributor.authorTan, SW
 
dc.contributor.authorSelleck, P
 
dc.contributor.authorParkinson, J
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T07:49:14Z
 
dc.date.available2010-09-06T07:49:14Z
 
dc.date.issued2007
 
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, we report on the evaluation of five influenza antigen detection tests by avian influenza H5N1 virus-positive swab samples to estimate their diagnostic sensitivity. The tests included two chromatographic immunoassays, an H5 avian influenza-specific antigen detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an influenza Aantigen detection ELISA, and an H5 rapid immunoblot assay. The results showed that the overall sensitivities of these tests ranged from 36.3% to 51.4% (95% confidence interval ranging from 31.0% to 57.0%), which were comparable to Directigen™ Flu A antigen detection tests but substantially lower than genome detection methods. Diagnostic sensitivity performance is a function of the concentration of antigens in samples and the analytical sensitivity of the individual test. The test sensitivities were significantly higher for sick and dead birds by cloacal, tracheal, or tissue swabs than for fecal swabs from apparently healthy birds, and these tests would not be suitable for surveillance testing of clinically healthy birds. Furthermore, the sensitivity for testing tracheal and cloacal swabs from waterfowl and wild birds was not as good as for chickens. This was most likely to be associated with variation in virus titers between specimens from different bird species. However, the tests showed good sensitivities for testing brain swabs from clinically affected waterfowl species. The results indicate that these antigen detection tests could be used for preliminary investigations of H5N1 outbreaks as a low-cost, simple flock test in sick and dead birds for the rapid detection of H5N1 infection. However, the relatively low sensitivity of the tests as individual bird tests means that they should be used on optimal clinical specimens from diseased birds, testing birds on a flock basis, or testing samples as close to the onset of disease as possible before viral titers diminish. They should be followed up by confirmatory tests, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or viral culture, wherever possible but could assist in facilitating rapid investigations and control interventions.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationAvian Diseases, 2007, v. 51 n. 1, p. 96-105 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2
 
dc.identifier.epage105
 
dc.identifier.hkuros138142
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000245372100015
 
dc.identifier.issn0005-2086
2013 Impact Factor: 1.107
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.820
 
dc.identifier.issue1
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.pmid17461273
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33947602466
 
dc.identifier.spage96
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/78988
 
dc.identifier.volume51
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherAmerican Association of Avian Pathologists, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://avdi.allenpress.com/avdionline/?request=index-html
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofAvian Diseases
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subjectAntigen test
 
dc.subjectELISA
 
dc.subjectH5N1 avian influenza
 
dc.subjectImmunochromatographic test
 
dc.subjectPoultry
 
dc.subjectWaterfowl
 
dc.titlePerformance evaluation of five detection tests for avian influenza antigen with various avian samples
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Chua, TH</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Ellis, TM</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Wong, CW</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Guan, Y</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Sheng, XG</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Peng, G</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lamichhane, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Maliadis, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Tan, SW</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Selleck, P</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Parkinson, J</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-09-06T07:49:14Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-09-06T07:49:14Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2007</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Avian Diseases, 2007, v. 51 n. 1, p. 96-105</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0005-2086</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/78988</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>In this paper, we report on the evaluation of five influenza antigen detection tests by avian influenza H5N1 virus-positive swab samples to estimate their diagnostic sensitivity. The tests included two chromatographic immunoassays, an H5 avian influenza-specific antigen detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an influenza Aantigen detection ELISA, and an H5 rapid immunoblot assay. The results showed that the overall sensitivities of these tests ranged from 36.3% to 51.4% (95% confidence interval ranging from 31.0% to 57.0%), which were comparable to Directigen&#8482; Flu A antigen detection tests but substantially lower than genome detection methods. Diagnostic sensitivity performance is a function of the concentration of antigens in samples and the analytical sensitivity of the individual test. The test sensitivities were significantly higher for sick and dead birds by cloacal, tracheal, or tissue swabs than for fecal swabs from apparently healthy birds, and these tests would not be suitable for surveillance testing of clinically healthy birds. Furthermore, the sensitivity for testing tracheal and cloacal swabs from waterfowl and wild birds was not as good as for chickens. This was most likely to be associated with variation in virus titers between specimens from different bird species. However, the tests showed good sensitivities for testing brain swabs from clinically affected waterfowl species. The results indicate that these antigen detection tests could be used for preliminary investigations of H5N1 outbreaks as a low-cost, simple flock test in sick and dead birds for the rapid detection of H5N1 infection. However, the relatively low sensitivity of the tests as individual bird tests means that they should be used on optimal clinical specimens from diseased birds, testing birds on a flock basis, or testing samples as close to the onset of disease as possible before viral titers diminish. They should be followed up by confirmatory tests, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or viral culture, wherever possible but could assist in facilitating rapid investigations and control interventions.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>American Association of Avian Pathologists, Inc. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://avdi.allenpress.com/avdionline/?request=index-html</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Avian Diseases</relation.ispartof>
<subject>Antigen test</subject>
<subject>ELISA</subject>
<subject>H5N1 avian influenza</subject>
<subject>Immunochromatographic test</subject>
<subject>Poultry</subject>
<subject>Waterfowl</subject>
<title>Performance evaluation of five detection tests for avian influenza antigen with various avian samples</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0005-2086&amp;volume=51&amp;issue=1&amp;spage=96&amp;epage=105&amp;date=2007&amp;atitle=Performance+evaluation+of+five+detection+tests+for+avian+influenza+antigen+with+various+avian+samples.</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>17461273</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-33947602466</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>138142</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33947602466&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>51</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>1</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>96</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>105</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000245372100015</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Murdoch University
  2. Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia
  3. Xiamen University
  4. The University of Hong Kong
  5. Bio-Mediq DPC Pty. Ltd.
  6. Rockeby Biomed (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
  7. CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory
  8. Tai Lung Veterinary Laboratory
  9. Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority
  10. Synbiotics Corporation