Detection of Porcine Cysticercosis in Meat Juice Samples from Infected Pigs



Seroprevalence of porcine cysticercosis has been generally studied using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting either antigens or antibodies in sera. However, serum is not always readily available. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic potential of meat juice in detecting porcine cysticercosis using a cysticercosis antibody ELISA.


Sera and meat juice samples from 13 different organs/tissues were collected from nine pigs naturally infected with cysticercosis and from six uninfected pigs reared under hygienic conditions. The sensitivity of the cysticercosis antibody ELISA in detecting porcine cysticercosis in meat juice samples was compared to that in serum samples from the same pigs.


Using sera, cysticercosis was detected in all nine pigs harbouring cysticerci, but not in those reared under hygienic conditions. The sensitivity of the ELISA was highest in meat juice extracted from the diaphragm (100%), heart (89%) and neck muscle (78%) of the nine infected pigs, whereas it varied between 0 and 44% in the other samples.


To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study for T. solium cysticercosis serology to use meat juice. Our results show that meat juice from pig carcass organs or muscles is a promising diagnostic specimen for the detection of porcine cysticercosis. More studies including a large sample size of pigs with varying degrees of cysticercosis infection are needed to further prove this concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Praet N, Speybroeck N, Manzanedo R, Berkvens D, Nforninwe DN, Zoli A et al (2009) The disease burden of Taenia solium cysticercosis in Cameroon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 3:e406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nkwengulila G (2014) The financial costs associated with porcine cysticercosis and epilepsy in Iringa rural district. Health 6:2959–2965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Assana E, Lightowlers MW, Zoli AP, Geerts S (2013) Taenia solium taeniosis/cysticercosis in Africa: risk factors, epidemiology and prospects for control using vaccination. Vet Parasitol 195:14–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Flisser A, Sarti E, Lightowlers M, Schantz P (2003) Neurocysticercosis: regional status, epidemiology, impact and control measures in the Americas. Acta Trop 87:43–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Phiri IK, Ngowi H, Afonso S, Matenga E, Boa M, Mukaratirwa S et al (2003) The emergence of Taenia solium cysticercosis in Eastern and Southern Africa as a serious agricultural problem and public health risk. Acta Trop 87:13–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Thomas LF, Harrison LJS, Toye P, de Glanville WA, Cook EAJ, Wamae CN et al (2016) Prevalence of Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs entering the food chain in western Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod 48:233–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Shonyela SM, Mkupasi EM, Sikalizyo SC, Kabemba EM, Ngowi HA, Phiri I (2017) An epidemiological survey of porcine cysticercosis in Nyasa District, Ruvuma Region, Tanzania. Parasite Epidemiol Control 2:35–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dorny P, Phiri IK, Vercruysse J, Gabriel S, Willingham AL, Brandt J et al (2004) A Bayesian approach for estimating values for prevalence and diagnostic test characteristics of porcine cysticercosis. Int J Parasitol 34:569–576.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Maganira JD, Mwang’ondea BJ, Kidima W, Mwita CJ, Höglund J (2019) Seroprevalence of circulating taeniid antigens in pigs and associated risk factors in Kongwa district. Tanzania Parasite Epidemiol Control 7:e00123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Abuseir S, Kühne M, Schnieder T, Klein G, Epe C (2007) Evaluation of a serological method for the detection of Taenia saginata cysticercosis using serum and meat juice samples. Parasitol Res 101:131–137.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Parikh R, Mathai A, Parikh S, Sekhar GC, Thomas R (2008) Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian J Ophthalmol 56:45–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wallander C, Frössling J, Vågsholm I, Burrells A, Lundén A (2015) “Meat juice” is not a homogeneous serological matrix. Foodborne Pathog Dis 12:280–288.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Abuseir S, Epe C, Schnieder T, Klein G, Kühne M (2006) Visual diagnosis of Taenia saginata cysticercosis during meat inspection: Is it unequivocal? Parasitol Res 99:405–409.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Chembensofu M, Mwape KE, Damme I Van, Hobbs E, Phiri IK, Masuku M et al (2017) Re-visiting the detection of porcine cysticercosis based on full carcass dissections of naturally Taenia solium infected pigs. Parasit Vectors 10:572.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Forbes LB, Parker SE, Gajadhar AA (2012) Performance of commercial ELISA and agglutination test kits for the detection of anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in serum and muscle fluid of swine infected with 100, 300, 500 or 1000 oocysts. Vet Parasitol 190:362–367.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors’ acknowledge the funding provided by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) for the bilateral research programme 2015–2020 titled “To Enhance Food Security, Safety and Value Addition in Tanzania’’ carried out in a joint research and training programme between the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), Tanzania and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden.


The work funded by SIDA under SIDA-Tanzania Bilateral Programme, Food Security Sub-programme (Contribution No. 5410004501).

Author information




JDM: conceived field and laboratory design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and manuscript writing. WK: conceived field, data interpretation and final manuscript revision. CJM: conceived field design. JH: conceived study design, leading the research team and final manuscript revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justine Daudi Maganira.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

The study protocol was approved, in compliance with the Tanzania’s Animal welfare act of 2008, by the Research Ethics Committee of the Sokoine University of Agriculture (RPGS/R/ETHICS/32).

Informed Consent

Pig owners voluntarily agreed and gave their oral informed consent for data collection from their slaughtered pigs.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maganira, J.D., Kidima, W., Mwita, C.J. et al. Detection of Porcine Cysticercosis in Meat Juice Samples from Infected Pigs. Acta Parasit. (2021).

Download citation


  • Pigs
  • Taenia solium porcine cysticercosis
  • Meat juice
  • Serum
  • Tanzania