Analysis of the Difference in Detecting Brucellosis with Different Initial Screening Methods and Different Diagnostic Reagents

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.01.025

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 Four primary screening methods and 11 commercial diagnostic reagents for brucellosis were used to detect 207 cattle and sheep serological samples collected in Xinjiang. Analyze the differences in the results and make a preliminary evaluation of the methods and products. 【Method】 Based on the test results of the APHA competitive ELISA kit in the British reference laboratory,The results were 78 positive sera from cattle with brucellosis and 57 negative sera, 52 positive sera from sheep and 20 negative sera. Use RBT antigen (Ⅰ), (Ⅱ), FPA antigen (Ⅲ), GICA (A, B, C, D), iELISA antibody detection kit (a, b, c, d) to detect the above samples. 【Results】 The sensitivity of the test results is between 42%-100%, the specificity is between 32%-100%, the coincidence rate between negative and positive is between 67%-98%, and the Kappa value between the cELISA test method of the British reference laboratory is between 0.35-1. 【Conclusion】 There are differences in the detection results of different methods and different reagents; there are differences in the results of using the same method and different reagents; the detection of bovine and sheep serum using the same manufacturer's reagents has different sensitivity and specificity results. Comparing the test results of different primary screening methods, it is found that iELISA has better sensitivity and RBT has better specificity. From the results of detection agreement, the agreement rate of RBT method is the highest, followed by FPA, GICA, and iELISA. The Kappa value between the cELISA test method of the British reference laboratory shows that RBT and FPA are completely or highly consistent with them, and GICA and iELISA are moderately consistent. Comparing the test results of different reagents of the same method, it is found that the RBT method II antigen is better than the I antigen; the four GICA test strips have significant differences, A is the best and B is the worst; iELISA kit a and c are better than other b and d.

Key words: Brucellosis; preliminary screening method; diagnostic reagent; difference

摘要：

【目的】应用布鲁氏菌病4种初筛方法及11种商品化诊断试剂检测新疆地区采集的207份牛、羊血清学样品,分析结果差异,对方法及产品进行评价。【方法】以英国参考实验室APHA竞争性ELISA试剂盒检测结果为标准,确定布鲁氏菌病牛阳性血清78份、阴性57份,羊阳性血清52份、阴性20份。应用RBT抗原(Ⅰ)、(Ⅱ),FPA抗原(Ⅲ)、GICA(A、B、C、D)、iELISA抗体检测试剂盒(a、b、c、d)对上述样品进行检测。【结果】11种商品化诊断试剂检测结果敏感性介于42%~100%,特异性介于32%~100%,阴阳性符合一致率介于67%~98%,与英国参考实验室cELISA检测方法间的Kappa值介于0.35~1。【结论】采用不同方法、不同试剂检测结果间存有差异;应用同一方法,采用不同试剂结果存有差异;应用同厂家试剂,检测牛、羊血清,敏感及特异性结果也有不同。iELISA具有较好的敏感性,RBT有较好的特异性。RBT方法一致率最高,其次为FPA、GICA、iELISA。RBT、FPA与其完全或高度符合,GICA和iELISA为中度符合。RBT方法Ⅱ抗原优于Ⅰ抗原;GICA 4种试纸条差异较为显著,A最佳,B最差;iELISA试剂盒a、c优于b、d。

关键词: 布鲁氏菌病, 初筛方法, 诊断试剂, 差异性

CLC Number:

S855.1

LIU Liya, YE Feng, MA Xiaojing, GU Wenxi, XIE Caiyun, ZHONG Qi, YI Xinping. Analysis of the Difference in Detecting Brucellosis with Different Initial Screening Methods and Different Diagnostic Reagents[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(1): 215-222.

刘丽娅, 叶锋, 马晓菁, 谷文喜, 谢彩云, 钟旗, 易新萍. 布鲁氏菌病不同初筛方法及诊断试剂检测差异性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(1): 215-222.

Figures/Tables 7

References 17

[1]	南京农学院. 家畜传染病学[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1982.
	Nanjing Agricultural College. Infectious Diseases of Livestock [M]. Beijing: Agriculture Press, 1982.
[2]	王森. 牛布鲁氏菌病的流行与防控方案[J]. 畜牧兽医科技信息, 2019,(7):86.
	WANG Sen. Epidemic and prevention and control plan of bovine brucellosis[J]. Science and Technology Information of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2019,(7):86.
[3]	赵贵民, 王洪梅, 何洪彬. 我国家畜布鲁氏菌病流行现状与诊断技术研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2016, 52(16):33-39.
	ZHAO Guimin, WANG Hongmei, HE Hongbin. The epidemiological status of animal brucellosis and research progress of diagnostic technology in our country[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 52(16):33-39.
[4]	王功民, 池丽娟, 马世春, 等. 我国畜间布鲁氏菌病流行特点及原因分析[J]. 中国动物检疫, 2010, 27(7):62-63.
	WANG Gongmin, CHI Lijuan, MA Shichun, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and causes of brucellosis among animals in China[J]. Animal Quarantine of China, 2010, 27(7):62-63.
[5]	葛丽萍, 张崇志. 布病的流行现状及防治进展[J]. 当代畜禽养殖业, 2019,(6):3-6.
	GE Liping, ZHANG Chongzhi. The epidemic situation and progress of prevention and treatment of Brucellosis[J]. Contemporary Livestock and Poultry Industry, 2019,(6):3-6.
[6]	莫茜, 阳爱国, 郝力力, 等. 牛羊不同布鲁氏菌病血清学检测方法的比较[J]. 中国动物保健, 2021, 23(8):109-110.
	MO Qian, YANG Aiguo, HAO Lili, et al. Comparison of Different Serological Detection Methods for Brucellosis in Cattle and Sheep[J]. China Animal Health, 2021, 23(8):109-110.
[7]	李盛琼, 侯巍, 莫茜, 等. 不同布鲁氏菌血清学方法检测牛羊血清抗体的比对[J]. 中国动物检疫, 2021, 38(8):99-102.
	LI Shengqiong, HOU Wei, MO Qian, et al. Comparison of Different Brucella Serology Methods for Detection of Bovine and Sheep Serum Antibodies[J]. China Animal Quarantine, 2021, 38(8):99-102.
[8]	蔺旭光, 史量全, 李佳怡, 等. 羊布鲁氏菌病4种血清学检测方法的临床应用比较[J]. 中国微生态学杂志, 2018, 30(4):471-473.
	LIN Xuguang, SHI Liangquan, LI Jiayi, et al. clinical application and comparation of four serological tests for sheep brucellosis in goats[J]. Chinese Journal of Microecology, 2018, 30(4):471-473.
[9]	王慧飞, 宗鹏, 徐磊, 等. Brucellacapt、RBT、SAT、iELISA四种血清学检测方法对布鲁氏菌病检测价值的比较研究[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2019, 19(4):672-675,641.
	WANG Huifei, ZONG Peng, XU Lei, et al. Comparison of Four Serological Detection Methods of Brucellacapt,RBT, SAT and iELISA in the Detection of Brucellosis[J]. Advances in Modern Biomedicine, 2019, 19(4 ):672-675,641.
[10]	赵娜, 赵赤鸿, 荣蓉, 等. 布鲁氏菌病血清学Brucellacapt和iELISA检测方法的比较[J]. 中国人兽共患病学报, 2014, 30(10):1045-1047,1051.
	ZHAO Na, ZHAO Chihong, RONG Rong, et al. Comparison of Brucellacapt and iELISA in serological diagnosis of Brucellosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Zoonoses, 2014, 30(10 ):1045-1047,1051.
[11]	尉瑞平, 王美霞, 宋利桃, 等. 布鲁氏菌病3种检测方法的比较分析[J]. 医学动物防制, 2019, 35(7):711-713.
	WEI Ruiping, WANG Meixia, SONG Litao, et al. Comparison and analysis of three detection methods for brucellosis[J]. Medical Animal Control, 2019, 35(7):711-713.
[12]	董雅琴, 刘爽, 郑辉, 等. 三种伪狂犬病病毒gE抗体ELISA检测试剂盒的比较[J]. 中国动物检疫, 2017, 34(11):79-81,88.
	DONG Yaqin, LIU Shuang, ZHENG Hui, et al. Comparison of three ELISA kits for gE antibody against pseudorabies virus[J]. China Animal Quarantine, 2017, 34(11):79-81, 88.
[13]	叶尔江·色尔哈孜, 赛力克·库鲁西, 努尔兰·木合买提, 等. 乌鲁木齐市骆驼养殖现状与发展建议[J]. 新疆畜牧业, 2016(8):10-13.
	Yeerjiang Serhazi, Selik Kulushi, Nurlan Mumati, et al. Current status and development suggestions of camel breeding in Urumqi[J]. Xinjiang Animal Husbandry, 2016(8):10-13.
[14]	齐景文, 依颖新, 周艳红, 等. 牛羊布鲁氏菌病四种血清学检测方法对比分析[J]. 中国动物检疫, 2015, 32(4):57-59.
	QI Jingwen, YI Yingxin, ZHOU Yanhong, et al. Comparative analysis of four serological detection methods for cattle and sheep brucellosis[J]. Animal Quarantine of China, 2015, 32(4):57-59.
[15]	朱绍辉, 宫枫举, 邵钰, 等. 两种诊断制品对临床样品中布鲁氏菌抗体的检测比较[J]. 中国动物检疫, 2018, 35(11):92-95.
	ZHU Shaohui, GONG Fengju, SHAO Yu, et al. Comparison of detection of Brucella antibodies in clinical samples by two diagnostic products[J]. China Animal Quarantine, 2018, 35(11):92-95.
[16]	董浩, 韩焘, 徐琦, 等. 3种国产布病抗体检测试剂盒的效果评价[J]. 中国兽医学报, 2020, 40(2):336-338.
	DONG Hao, HAN Tao, XU Qi, et al. Evaluation of three domestic Brucellosis antibody test kits[J]. Chinese Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 2020, 40(2):336-338.
[17]	杨书观, 王爱香. 3种布鲁氏菌病试验方法检测380例布鲁氏菌病结果比较分析[J]. 河南预防医学杂志, 2018, 29(8):598-599,610.
	YANG Shuguan, WANG Aixiang. Comparative analysis of the results of three brucellosis test methods n 380 cases of brucellosis[J]. Henan Preventive Medicine Journal of Science, 2018, 29(8):598-599,610.

项目 Project		英国参考实验室 cELISA试剂盒 UK Reference Laboratory cELISA Kit		合计 Total
项目 Project		阳性 Positive	阴性 Negative	合计 Total
4种方法 11种试剂 4 methods 11 reagents	阳性	a	b	p1=a+b
	阴性	c	d	q1=c+d
	合计	p2=a+c	q2=b+d	n

项目 Project		英国参考实验室 cELISA试剂盒 UK Reference Laboratory cELISA Kit		合计 Total
项目 Project		阳性 Positive	阴性 Negative	合计 Total
4种方法 11种试剂 4 methods 11 reagents	阳性	a	b	p1=a+b
	阴性	c	d	q1=c+d
	合计	p2=a+c	q2=b+d	n

动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	英国参考实验室 cELISA试剂盒 UK Reference Laboratory cELISA Kit		敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)	英国cELISA 试剂盒 Kappa 值 The Kappa value with the British cELISA Kit
动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	阳性 Positive	阴性 Negative	敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)
牛 Cattle	135	Ⅰ	阳性	71	0	91	100	0	8.97	94.81	0.9
		Ⅰ	阴性	7	57	91	100	0	8.97	94.81	0.9
		Ⅱ	阳性	75	0	96	100	0	3.85	97.78	0.95
		Ⅱ	阴性	3	57	96	100	0	3.85	97.78	0.95
羊 Sheep	72	Ⅰ	阳性	30	0	68	100	0	31.82	80.56	0.63
		Ⅰ	阴性	14	28	68	100	0	31.82	80.56	0.63
		Ⅱ	阳性	40	0	91	100	0	9.09	94.44	0.89
		Ⅱ	阴性	4	28	91	100	0	9.09	94.44	0.89

动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	英国参考实验室 cELISA试剂盒 UK Reference Laboratory cELISA Kit		敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)	英国cELISA 试剂盒 Kappa 值 The Kappa value with the British cELISA Kit
动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	阳性 Positive	阴性 Negative	敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)
牛 Cattle	135	Ⅰ	阳性	71	0	91	100	0	8.97	94.81	0.9
		Ⅰ	阴性	7	57	91	100	0	8.97	94.81	0.9
		Ⅱ	阳性	75	0	96	100	0	3.85	97.78	0.95
		Ⅱ	阴性	3	57	96	100	0	3.85	97.78	0.95
羊 Sheep	72	Ⅰ	阳性	30	0	68	100	0	31.82	80.56	0.63
		Ⅰ	阴性	14	28	68	100	0	31.82	80.56	0.63
		Ⅱ	阳性	40	0	91	100	0	9.09	94.44	0.89
		Ⅱ	阴性	4	28	91	100	0	9.09	94.44	0.89

动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	英国参考实验室 cELISA试剂盒 UK Reference Laboratory cELISA Kit		敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)	英国cELISA 试剂盒 Kappa 值 The Kappa value with the British cELISA Kit
动物种类 Animal species	样品总数 Total number of samples	检测试剂 Detection reagent	检测结果 Test results	阳性 Positive	阴性 Negative	敏感性 Sensitivity (%)	特异性 Specificity (%)	假阳性率 False positive rate (%)	假阴性率 False negative rate (%)	一致率 Consis tency rate (%)
牛 Cattle	135	Ⅲ	阳性	78	14	100	75.44	24.56	0	89.63	0.78
牛 Cattle	135	Ⅲ	阴性	0	43	100	75.44	24.56	0	89.63	0.78
羊 Sheep	72	Ⅲ	阳性	44	8	100	71.43	28.57	0	88.89	0.75
羊 Sheep	72	Ⅲ	阴性	0	20	100	71.43	28.57	0	88.89	0.75