TY - JOUR
T1 - Detection of African animal trypanosomes
T2 - the haematocrit centrifugation technique compared to PCR with samples stored on filter paper or in DNA protecting buffer
AU - Moti, Y
AU - Fikru, R
AU - Büscher, P
AU - Van Den Abbeele, J
AU - Duchateau, L
AU - Delespaux, V
N1 - ITG-B3A; ITG-B4A; ITG-BLA; DBM; U-PARDIA; U-VPROT; JIF, DOI; PDF; DSPACE56
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - The present study aimed at comparing the trypanosome specific 18S-PCR-RFLP using samples stored either on Whatman filter papers (PCR-RFLP-fp) or in a commercial cell lysis and DNA protecting buffer (PCR-RFLP-pb) with the haematocrit centrifugation technique (HCT), a method widely used for the diagnosis of African Animal Trypanosomosis. Out of 411 head of cattle, 49 (11.92%) (CI=8.95-15.45) scored positive for the presence of trypanosomes by HCT whereas 75 (18.25%) (CI=14.63-22.33) and 124 (30.17%) (CI=25.77-34.86) scored positive using PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb, respectively. Out of the 49 positives by HCT, 14 (28.57%) (CI=16.58-43.26) and 28 (57.14%) (CI=42.21-71.18) were concordant by PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb, respectively. None of the PCR techniques detected parasites from the Trypanozoon group. Although HCT detected more cases of Trypanosoma vivax (33), species identification using PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb were significantly different (p<0.001) from the HCT technique. The use of DNA protective buffer is thus recommended as the output of the PCR-RFLP-pb is improved and the risk of contamination between samples is reduced.
AB - The present study aimed at comparing the trypanosome specific 18S-PCR-RFLP using samples stored either on Whatman filter papers (PCR-RFLP-fp) or in a commercial cell lysis and DNA protecting buffer (PCR-RFLP-pb) with the haematocrit centrifugation technique (HCT), a method widely used for the diagnosis of African Animal Trypanosomosis. Out of 411 head of cattle, 49 (11.92%) (CI=8.95-15.45) scored positive for the presence of trypanosomes by HCT whereas 75 (18.25%) (CI=14.63-22.33) and 124 (30.17%) (CI=25.77-34.86) scored positive using PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb, respectively. Out of the 49 positives by HCT, 14 (28.57%) (CI=16.58-43.26) and 28 (57.14%) (CI=42.21-71.18) were concordant by PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb, respectively. None of the PCR techniques detected parasites from the Trypanozoon group. Although HCT detected more cases of Trypanosoma vivax (33), species identification using PCR-RFLP-fp and PCR-RFLP-pb were significantly different (p<0.001) from the HCT technique. The use of DNA protective buffer is thus recommended as the output of the PCR-RFLP-pb is improved and the risk of contamination between samples is reduced.
U2 - 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.04.014
M3 - A1: Web of Science-article
C2 - 24836424
SN - 0304-4017
VL - 203
SP - 253
EP - 258
JO - Veterinary Parasitology
JF - Veterinary Parasitology
IS - 3-4
ER -