JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation Vol. 21 Issue 3, 344-345
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schmitz, S.
Right arrow Articles by Neiger, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schmitz, S.
Right arrow Articles by Neiger, R.

Brief Research Reports

Comparison of three rapid commercial Canine parvovirus antigen detection tests with electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction

Silke Schmitz1, Christina Coenen, Matthias König, Heinz-Jürgen Thiel and Reto Neiger

Correspondence: 1Corresponding Author: Silke Schmitz, Klinik für Kleintiere (Innere Medizin) der Justus-Liebig Universitaet Giessen, Frankfurter Str. 126, D-35392 Giessen, Germany. Silke.Schmitz{at}vetmed.uni-giessen.de

Different antibody-based tests for rapid detection of Canine parvovirus antigens in feces are commercially available, allowing quick diagnosis in a clinical setting. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests compared with standard methods has not been evaluated so far. In the current study, 3 commercial tests were compared with immune-electron microscopy (IEM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Dogs were divided into 3 groups: group A, samples from dogs with acute hemorrhagic diarrhea (n = 50); group B, dogs with chronic diarrhea (n = 10); and group C, dogs with no evidence of gastrointestinal disease (n = 40). Specificity of all 3 commercial tests versus PCR and IEM was good to excellent (92.2–100%). Sensitivity, in contrast, was poor: 15.8–26.3% versus PCR and 50–60% versus IEM. In group A, 10 dogs were positive by IEM and 24 dogs were positive by PCR. Positive PCR results were also obtained from animals in control groups (group B, 1 dog; group C, 5 dogs). No dog in group B or C was positive by IEM. In conclusion, the rapid tests are useful to diagnose canine parvoviral enteritis, but they do not rule out parvovirus infection in an animal with typical clinical signs. In addition, a small percentage of healthy dogs and dogs with chronic diarrhea showed positive PCR results; this may be due to asymptomatic/persistent infection or intestinal passage of virus. The significance of this finding remains unclear.

Key Words: Dogs • enteritis • enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay • immunology • parvovirosis







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.