Specificity of the tuberculin skin test is modified by use of a protein cocktail containing eSAT-6 and CFP-10 in cattle naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis

Clinical and Vaccine Immunology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 797-803

  Flores Villalva, S ^a   Suarez Guemes F ^a   Espitia, C ^a   Whelan, A O ^b   Vordermeier, M ^b   Gutierrez Pabello J A ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CULTURE FILTRATE PROTEIN 10; EARLY SECRETORY ANTIGENIC TARGET 6; GAMMA INTERFERON; TUBERCULIN;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS; CATTLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; INFLAMMATION; MIXED INFECTION; MYCOBACTERIUM BOVIS; MYCOBACTERIUM PARATUBERCULOSIS; PALPATION; PARATUBERCULOSIS; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN INDURATION; SKINFOLD THICKNESS; TUBERCULIN TEST;

ANIMALS; ANTIGENS, BACTERIAL; BACTERIAL PROTEINS; CATTLE; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; MYCOBACTERIUM BOVIS; PARATUBERCULOSIS; PILOT PROJECTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN TESTS; TUBERCULIN TEST; TUBERCULOSIS, BOVINE; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

EID: 84860348350     PISSN: 15566811     EISSN: 1556679X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.05668-11     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aagaard C, et al. 2010. Detection of bovine tuberculosis in herds with different disease prevalence and influence of paratuberculosis infection on PPDB and ESAT-6/CFP10 specificity. Prev. Vet. Med. 96:161-169.
2. Aagaard C, et al. 2006. Optimizing antigen cocktails for detection of Mycobacterium bovis in herds with different prevalences of bovine tuberculosis: ESAT6-CFP10 mixture shows optimal sensitivity and specificity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:4326-4335. (Pubitemid 44937059)
3. Álvarez J, et al. 2009. Effect of paratuberculosis on the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in a cattle herd with a mixed infection using interferongamma detection assay. Vet. Microbiol. 135:389-393.
4. Amadori M, Lyashchenko KP, Gennaro ML, Pollock JM, Zerbini I. 2002. Use of recombinant proteins in antibody test for bovine tuberculosis. Vet. Microbiol. 85:379-389. (Pubitemid 34164664)
5. Andersen P, Munk ME, Pollock JM, Doherty TM. 2000. Specific immune-based diagnosis of tuberculosis. Lancet 356:1099-1104.
6. Aranaz A, et al. 2006. Assessment of diagnostic tools for eradication of bovine tuberculosis in cattle co-infected with Mycobacterium bovis and M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Vet. Res. 37:593-606. (Pubitemid 44186432)
7. Baisden LA, Larsen AB, Vardaman TH. 1951. Relative sensitivity of different skin areas of cattle to intradermal test. Am. J. Vet. Res. 12:273-275.
8. Belisle J, Sonnenberg G. 1998. Isolation of genomic DNA from mycobacteria. Methods Mol. Biol. 101:31-44.
9. Buddle BM, et al. 1999. Differentiation between Mycobacterium bovis BCG-vaccinated and M. bovis-infected cattle by using recombinant mycobacterial antigens. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:1-5. (Pubitemid 29035631)
10. Cousins DV, Wilton SD, Francis BR. 1991. Use of DNA amplification for the rapid identification of Mycobacterium bovis. Vet. Microbiol. 27:187-195.
11. Cousins DV, Wilton SD, Francis BR, Gow BL. 1992. Use of polymerase chain reaction for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 30: 255-258.
12. de la Rua-Domenech R, et al. 2006. Ante mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle: A review of the tuberculin tests, γ-interferon assay and other ancillary diagnostic techniques. Res. Vet. Sci. 81:190-210.
13. Estrada-Chávez C, et al. 2004. Concordancia de PCR y métodos rutinarios para el diagnóstico de tuberculosis bovina. Vet. Méx. 35:225-236.
14. Harboe M, Oettinger T, Wiker HG, Rosenkrands I, Andersen P. 1996. Evidence for occurrence of the ESAT-6 protein in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and virulent Mycobacterium bovis and for its absence in Mycobacterium bovis BCG. Infect. Immun. 64:16-22. (Pubitemid 26009335)
15. Hope JC, et al. 2005. Exposure to Mycobacterium avium induces low-level protection from Mycobacterium bovis infection but compromises diagnosis of disease in cattle. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 141:432-439. (Pubitemid 41075866)
16. Larsen AB, Groth AH, Johnson HW. 1950. Allergic response to johnin and tuberculin of various skin regions of cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 11:301-303.
17. Lyashchenko K, et al. 1998. Use of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complexspecific antigen cocktails for a skin test specific for tuberculosis. Infect. Immun. 66:3606-3610. (Pubitemid 28347814)
18. Kao RR, et al. 2007. Mycobacterium bovis shedding patterns from experimentally infected calves and the effect of current infection with bovine viral diarrhoea virus. J. R. Soc. Interface 4:545-551. (Pubitemid 46846682)
19. Monaghan ML, Doherty ML, Collins JD, Kazda JF, Quinn PJ. 1994. The tuberculin test. Vet. Microbiol. 40:114-124.
20. Munson TE. 1985. Guideline on validation of the Limulus amebocyte lysate test as an end-product endotoxin test for human and biological drug products. 189:211-220.
21. Paterson AB. 1959. Tuberculosis, p 716-744. In Stableforth AW, Galloway IA (ed), Diseases due to bacteria, vol 2. Butterworth's, London, United Kingdom.
22. Pollock JM, et al. 2003. Specific delayed-type hypersensitivity responses to ESAT-6 identify tuberculosis-infected cattle. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 1856-1860. (Pubitemid 36576503)
23. Schiller I, et al. 2010. Bovine tuberculosis: A review of current and emerging diagnostic techniques in view of their relevance for disease control and eradication. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 57:205-220.
24. Schiller I, et al. 2010. Bovine tuberculosis: Effect of the tuberculin skin test on in vitro interferon gamma responses. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 136:1-11.
25. Thoen OC, Ebel ED. 2006. Diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis, p 49-53. In Thoen OC, Steele HJ, Gilsdorf JM (ed). Mycobacterium bovis infection in animals and humans. Blackwells, Oxford, United Kingdom.
26. van Pinxteren LA, Ravn P, Agger EM, Pollock J, Andersen P. 2000. Diagnosis of tuberculosis based on the two specific antigens ESAT-6 and CFP10. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 7:155-160. (Pubitemid 30132105)
27. Vordermeier HM, et al. 1999. Development of diagnostic reagents to differentiate between Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccination and M. bovis infection in cattle. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:675-682. (Pubitemid 29441172)
28. Waters WR, et al. 2004. Use of recombinant ESAT-6:CFP-10 fusion protein for differentiation of infections of cattle by Mycobacterium bovis and by M. avium subsp. avium and M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 11:729-735. (Pubitemid 38943996)
29. Whelan AO, et al. 2010. Development of a skin test for bovine tuberculosis for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:3176-3181.
30. Whelan AO, et al. 2003. Modulation of the bovine delayed typehypersensitivity responses to defined mycobacterial antigens by a synthetic bacterial lipopeptide. Infect. Immun. 71:6420-6425. (Pubitemid 37337701)