2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1135(01)00389-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental infection of pregnant ewes with enteric and abortion-source Chlamydophila abortus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both the cELISA and the rOMP90-4 test appear to be sufficiently sensitive and specific for achieving this aim. It is interesting that in a recent study, when one of the enteric isolates was administered by oronasal inoculation to pregnant ewes, it resulted in abortion (38). Surprisingly, under the experimental conditions used, the enteric isolate was even more virulent than the control abortifacient isolate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Both the cELISA and the rOMP90-4 test appear to be sufficiently sensitive and specific for achieving this aim. It is interesting that in a recent study, when one of the enteric isolates was administered by oronasal inoculation to pregnant ewes, it resulted in abortion (38). Surprisingly, under the experimental conditions used, the enteric isolate was even more virulent than the control abortifacient isolate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…An alternative scenario is that the ewes were infected with a less virulent strain of Cp. abortus , which provokes seroconversion but no abortion [ 17 , 20 ]. Fluctuations in the antibody levels could be the result of bacterial shedding during oestrus which provokes an induction of antibody levels without causing abortion [ 21 , 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diagnosis can be improved by development of methods based on detection of chlamydial antigen by immunofluorescence (Rodolakis et al, 1999), immunohistochemical staining Kunz et al, 1991;Tsakos et al, 2001) or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) Sanderson and Andersen, 1989), which are specific and more sensitive, but require use of sophisticated equipment and are expensive to perform. However, these tests generally do not allow identification of the respective species or serotype involved (Sachse et al, 2009b).…”
Section: Direct Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%