Comparative evaluation of different antigen detection methods for the detection of peste des petits ruminants virus. Issue 6 (2nd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Halecker, Sabrina; Joseph, Sunitha; Mohammed, Rubeena; Wernery, Ulrich; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Beer, Martin; Hoffmann, Bernd
• Is Part Of: Transboundary and emerging diseases. Volume 67:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 2881
• Page End: 2891
• Publication Date: 2020-07-02
• Subjects: diagnostic -- goats -- pathogenesis -- peste des petits ruminants (PPR) -- rapid detection methods -- Small ruminant morbillivirus -- virus; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13660
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1865-1674

Abstract

Abstract: Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is a fatal disease of small ruminants which has spread rapidly to previously PPR‐free countries in recent decades, causing enormous economic losses in the affected regions. Here, two newly emerged PPR virus (PPRV) isolates from India and from the Middle East were tested in an animal trial to analyse their pathogenesis, and to evaluate serological and molecular detection methods. Animals infected with the two different PPRV isolates showed marked differences in clinical manifestation and scoring. The PPRV isolate from India was less virulent than the virus from the Middle East. Commercially available rapid detection methods for PPRV antigen (two Lateral Flow Devices (LFDs) and one antigen ELISA) were evaluated in comparison with a nucleic acid detection method. For this purpose, ocular and nasal swabs were used. Due to the easy non‐invasive sampling, faecal samples were also analysed. For all rapid antigen detection methods, a high specificity of 100% was observed independent of the sample matrix and dilution buffers used. Both antigen ELISA and LFD tests showed highest sensitivities for nasal swabs. Here, the detection rate of the antigen ELISA, the LFD‐PESTE‐TEST and the LFD‐ID Rapid‐Test was 78%, 75% and 78%, respectively. Ocular swabs were less suitable for antigen detection of PPRV. These results reflect the increased viral load in nasal swabs of PPRV infected goats compared to ocular swabs. The faecal samples were the least suitable for antigen detection. In conclusion, nasal swab samples are the first choice for the antigen and genome detection of PPRV. Nevertheless, based on the excellent diagnostic specificity of the rapid tests, positive results generated with other sample matrices are solid. In contrast, negative test results can be caused on the reduced analytical sensitivity of the rapid antigen tests and must be treated with caution.