Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Serodiagnosis of infection withTrypanosoma evansi in camels in the Sudan

  • A. G. Luckins
  • R. Boid
  • P. Rae
  • M. M. Mahmoud
  • K. H. el Malik
  • A. R. Gray
Article

Summary

Five diagnostic tests for infection withTrypanosoma evansi have been compared in groups of camels experimentally infected or exposed to natural infection in the Sudan. The correlation of positive results obtained by assays of IgM levels, the mercuric chloride test and the formol gel test with the presence of active infection was unsatisfactory, but there was a good correlation between results obtained using IFAT and ELISA and proven infection. Sera from a high proportion of apparently uninfected camels from endemic areas gave positive reactions with all 5 tests, possibly indicating inadequate parasitological diagnosis or persistence of antibody after unsatisfactory chemotherapy. It was concluded that serological tests using trypanosomal antigens to detect antibodies were more sensitive for diagnosis than indirect tests based on raised euglobulin levels. Serodiagnostic tests may therefore have a place in future programmes for surveillance and control ofT. evansi infections in camels.

Keywords

Formol Chlorure Sera Natural Infection Mercuric Chloride 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Serodiagnostic De La Trypanosomose AT. Evansi Chez Le Chameau Du Soudan

Résumé

Cinq méthodes de diagnostic de la trypanosomose àT. evansi chez le chameau ont été comparées en utilisant des chameaux expérimentalement et naturellement infectés, au Soudan. La corrélation des résultats positifs obtenus par utilisation de la diffusion radiale des Igm, par le test au chlorure mercurique et par le test de la formol gélification à l'occasion des infections en évolution, n'a pas été satisfaisante alors qu'il y a eu bonne corrélation entre les résultats obtenus par IFAT et ELISA et des infections véritables.

Les sérums d'une importante proportion de chameaux apparemment non infectés, en provenance de régions à maladie endémique, ont donné des réactions positives aux cinq tests, ce qui peut indiquer soit une insuffisance dans le diagnostic parasitologique soit la persistance d'anticorps résultant d'une chimiothérapie insuffisánte.

Les auteurs concluent que les tests sérologiques utilisant des trypanosomes comme antigènes pour mettre les anticorps en évidence sont plus sensibles, en matière de diagnostic, que les tests indirects basés sur la détection des niveaux des IgM. C'est pourquoi les tests faisant appel aux méthodes de sérodiagnostic doivent avoir leur place dans les programmes à venir concernant tant la surveillance que la lutte contre les infections du chameau àT. evansi.

Serodiagnostico De La Infeccion PorTrypanosoma Evansi En Camellos En Sudan

Resumen

Se compararon cinco pruebas diagnósticas para infecciones porTrypanosoma evansi en grupos de camellos infectados experimentalmente o expuestos a la infección natural. La correlación de los resultados positivos utilizando pruebas de difusión radial aisladas, le niveles de IgM, la prueba de cloruro de mercúrio, y la prueba de agar formol con la presencia de infección activa, fue insatisfactória. Hubo buena correlación entre los resultados obtenidos con “IFAT” y “ELISA” con infección comprobada. El suero de una proporción alta de camellos aparentemente sanos, provenientes de áreas endémicas, presentaron reacciones positivas con las cinco pruebas, indicando posiblemente un diagnóstico parasitológico inadecuado, o la persistencia de anticuerpos despues de una quimioterápia inadecuada. Se concluyó, que las pruebas serológicas usando antígenos preparados de tripanosomas para detectar anticuerpos, fueron más sensitovos que las pruebas indirectas basadas en el aumento de euglobulinas. Las pruebas serodiagnósticas posiblemente tendran un lugar en programas futuros de reconocimiento y control deT. evansi en camellos.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd-el-Ghaffar, M. (1960).Proceedings of the 1st Annual Veterinary Congress, Cairo, 1960, pp. 307–313.Google Scholar
  2. Avrameas, S. &Ternynck, T. (1969).Immunochemistry,6, 53–66.Google Scholar
  3. Bansal, S. R. &Pathak, R. C. (1971).Haryana Veterinarian,10, 6–12.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, S. C. J. (1929).Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics,42, 118–126.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, S. C. J. (1933).Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics,46, 67–77, 174–185.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, S. C. J. &Kenny, P. A. C. (1928).Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics,41, 341–353.Google Scholar
  7. Clarkson, M. J., Penhale, W. J. &McKenna, R. B. (1975).Journal of Comparative Pathology,85, 397–410.Google Scholar
  8. Engvall, E. &Perlmann, P. (1972).Journal of Immunology,109, 129–135.Google Scholar
  9. Godfrey, D. G. &Killick-Kendrick, R. (1962).Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology,56, 14–19.Google Scholar
  10. Goldman, M. (1968).Fluorescent Antibody Methods. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  11. Gray, A. R. (1974). Les moyens de lutte contre les trypanosomes et leur vecteurs.IEMVT/OIE Colloquium, Paris, 12–14 March 1974, pp. 187–192.Google Scholar
  12. Jatkar, P. R. &Singh, M. (1971).British Veterinary Journal,127, 283–288.Google Scholar
  13. Knowles, R. H. (1924).Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics,37, 37–44.Google Scholar
  14. Knowles, R. H. (1927).Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics,40, 59–71, 118–143.Google Scholar
  15. Lanham, S. M. (1977).Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,71, 8–10.Google Scholar
  16. Luckins, A. G. (1977).Tropical Animal Health and Production,9, 53–62.Google Scholar
  17. Luckins, A. G. &Mehlitz, D. (1978).Tropical Animal Health and Production,10, 149–159.Google Scholar
  18. Luckins, A. G., Gray, A. R. &Rae, P. (1978).Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology,72, 429–441.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Animal Resources (1960). Annual Report of the Department of Animal Production, Khartoum.Google Scholar
  20. Molyneux, D. H. (1975).Veterinary Parasitology,1, 5–17.Google Scholar
  21. Pegram, R. G. &Scott, J. M. (1976).Tropical Animal Health and Production,8, 20–27.Google Scholar
  22. Plantureux, E. (1923).Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Societe de Biologie,88, 1189–1190.Google Scholar
  23. Receveur, M. (1938).Receuil de Medecine Veterinaire Exotique,11, 113–118.Google Scholar
  24. Sabanshiev, M. (1972).Veterinariya (Moscow),5, 65–66.Google Scholar
  25. Sabanshiev, M. (1973).Veterinariya (Moscow),6, 63–64.Google Scholar
  26. Schoening, H. W. (1924).Journal of Infectious Diseases,34, 608–613.Google Scholar
  27. Woo, P. T. K. (1969).Canadian Journal of Zoology,47, 921–923.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Longman Group Limited 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. G. Luckins
    • 1
  • R. Boid
    • 1
  • P. Rae
    • 1
  • M. M. Mahmoud
    • 2
  • K. H. el Malik
    • 2
  • A. R. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Tropical Veterinary MedicineUniversity of Edinburgh, Easter Bush
  2. 2.Department of Preventive Medicine and Veterinary Public HealthUniversity of KhartoumSudan

Personalised recommendations