Interrelations immuno-taxonomiques de T. brucei, T. rbodesiense et T. gambiense

Development of a slide ELISA for canine leishmaniasis and comparison with four serological tests

“…Cross‐reactions with sera from trypanosome‐positive dogs might have been expected owing to the phylogenetic relationship between Leishmania and Trypanosoma species. These reactions have been observed by other authors (Duxbury and Sadun 1964, Le Ray and others 1973, El Amin and others 1986, Harith and others 1989). Within the limited number of samples tested, the m id showed cross‐reactions only with the sera from Trypanosoma ‐infected dogs, as expected; the dat produced one false‐positive result, but none of the other tests did.…”

“…Because of the difficulties with clinical diagnosis and the direct detection of the parasite (Ferrer and others 1995), several serological tests are used, including indirect immunofluorescence and indirect haemagglutination (Mancianti and Meciani 1988), gel immunoprecipitation and immunoelectrophoresis (Le Ray and others 1973), an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (Hommel and others 1978), direct agglutination (Harith and others 1989) and immunoblotting (Neogy and others 1992).…”

“…These two tests were carried out by the methods of Le Ray and others (1973). A positive reaction in the m id was revealed by a precipitated band, positive reaction in the iep was revealed by the presence of specific precipitation arcs, corresponding to the antigenic components 4 and/or 24.…”

“…Because there were only six dogs which were parasitologically positive, the sensitivity and specificity of the ifat , selisa and dat were calculated with reference to the combined serological positivity of the m id and iep tests, which detect specific antibodies (Le Ray and others 1973). Thus, the sensitivity and specificity of the tests was 100 per cent, except for the dat which had a specificity of 95 per cent.…”