Evaluation of Trapper-Collected Nobuto Filter-Paper Blood Samples for Distemper and Parvovirus Antibody Detection in Coyotes (Canis latrans) and Raccoons (Procyon lotor)

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Blood samples are often collected from free-ranging wildlife for antibody detection. However, filter-paper (FP) strips are more cost efficient and easy to collect and store. We evaluated trapper-collected FP strips and body-cavity blood for canine distemper (CDV) and parvovirus (CPV-2) antibody detection in raccoons (Procyon lotor) and coyotes (Canis latrans). From 2008 to 2010, licensed trappers near Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US collected paired samples from harvested animals. Canine distemper antibodies were detected using virus neutralization and parvovirus antibodies were detected using hemagglutination inhibition. Titers $1:32 for CDV and $1:25 for CPV-2 were considered evidence of exposure. Using Cohen's kappa test of agreement, FP strip titers agreed with sera for CDV in coyotes (n528, K50.772) and raccoons (n529, K50.858) and for CPV-2 in coyotes (n540, K50.775) and raccoons (n570, K50.646). However, raccoons determined to be exposed to CPV-2 from sera were unexposed by FP strips in 35% of the samples. Titer results may be affected by quality and volume of blood samples, interval between collection and processing, small sample sizes, and diagnostic testing procedures. Filter-paper strips can be useful for detecting CDV and CPV-2 exposure in coyotes and raccoons with correct field sample collection and appropriate diagnostic testing procedures.

Dried Blood Spots technology for veterinary applications and biological investigations: technical aspects, retrospective analysis, ongoing status and future perspectives

“…In general, there are no established standardized procedures for antibodies extraction from dried biological fluids. Antibodies have been extracted from a membrane carrier into different buffers such as borate buffer (Wolff and Hudson 1974 ; Sacks et al 2002 ; Chomel et al 2004 ; Bevins et al 2016 ; Chandler et al 2018 ), Tris buffer (Nogami et al 1992 ; Chandler et al 2018 ), physiological saline (Wolff and Hudson 1974 ; Kalayou et al 2011 ), phosphate buffered saline (PBS) with detergent (Afshar et al 1987 , 1992 ; Roy et al 1992 ; Hopkins et al 1998 ; Holland et al 2002 ; de Oliveira et al 2011 ; Dam-Tuxen et al 2014 ; Andersson et al 2015 ; Al-Kappany et al 2018 ) or PBS with no detergent (Aldo Gaggero and Sutmöller 1965 ; Platt and Adams 1976 ; Armstrong et al 1991 ; Stallknecht and Davidson 1992 ; Cabrera et al 1999 ; Mueller-Anneling et al 2000 ; da Silva et al 2000 ; Holland et al 2002 ; Jordan et al 2005 ; Dalerum et al 2005 ; Mucker et al 2006 ; Yoon et al 2010 ; Dusek et al 2011 ; Mercier et al 2013 ; Rosypal et al 2014 ; Abbott et al 2014 ; Aston et al 2014 ; Kamps et al 2015 ; O’Hara et al 2018 ; Santos et al 2018 ; Ytrehus et al 2021 ; Jennings-Gaines et al 2021 ). Usually, the amount of blood absorbed and then retained from a filter paper was not assessed; however, that is an important issue during assay development or commercial ELISA kit adaptation for dried samples.…”