2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-008-9128-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Persistent detection of peste de petits ruminants antigen in the faeces of recovered goats

Abstract: Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) disease was confirmed in West African Dwarf goats. They were managed symptomatically with antibiotics and antidarrhoeics. Following clinical recovery, faeces were collected every week from 40 recovered goats to monitor excretion of the PPR virus haemagglutinins in their faeces. All the 40 recovered goats shed the PPR virus haemagglutinins for 11 weeks post recovery. Nine goats (22.5%) continued shedding the viral antigen 12 weeks post recovery. There was correlation between wee… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
38
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
3
38
1
Order By: Relevance
“…(Abubakar et al, 2008) although co-infection with both PPRV and pestiviruses in cases of abortion has been reported (Kul et al, 2008). The virus is highly contagious and easily transmitted by direct contact between the secretions and/or excretions of infected animals and nearby healthy animals (Ezeibe et al, 2008). Virulence appears to vary from strain to strain, although there is only one serotype, and disease symptoms are often confused with, and exacerbated by, secondary infections making PPRV a difficult disease to characterize, diagnose and treat (Couacy-Hymann et al, 2005) with differential diagnosis including pasteurellosis, contagious ecthyma, contgious caprine pleuropneumonia (CCPP), bluetongue (BTV), heartwater, coccidosis, mineral poisoning and foot-andmouth disease.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Abubakar et al, 2008) although co-infection with both PPRV and pestiviruses in cases of abortion has been reported (Kul et al, 2008). The virus is highly contagious and easily transmitted by direct contact between the secretions and/or excretions of infected animals and nearby healthy animals (Ezeibe et al, 2008). Virulence appears to vary from strain to strain, although there is only one serotype, and disease symptoms are often confused with, and exacerbated by, secondary infections making PPRV a difficult disease to characterize, diagnose and treat (Couacy-Hymann et al, 2005) with differential diagnosis including pasteurellosis, contagious ecthyma, contgious caprine pleuropneumonia (CCPP), bluetongue (BTV), heartwater, coccidosis, mineral poisoning and foot-andmouth disease.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although Haemagglutinationbased studies to evaluate persistence of PPRV have been conducted in the past however, the HA assay is a non-specific test for the detection of PPRV . In the present study, the RT-PCR was used for viral RNA detection from recovered animals in comparison to the study carried out by Ezeibe et al (2008) and Abubakar et al (2012). Thus results of the present study provide coherent evidence of PPRV shedding up to the 16 th week after outbreak based on RT-PCR.…”
Section: Samples Collected From Recovered Animalsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…These findings are in concurrence with those of Abubakar et al (2012) who also reported of PPRV shedding up to eighth week following an outbreak using Haemagglutination assay. Ezeibe et al (2008) also documented that PPRV shedding was detected in most of the recovered animals up to eleventh week, while nine animals were found positive up to 12 weeks after outbreak using Haemagglutination assay (HA). Although Haemagglutinationbased studies to evaluate persistence of PPRV have been conducted in the past however, the HA assay is a non-specific test for the detection of PPRV .…”
Section: Samples Collected From Recovered Animalsmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conventional techniques used for PPRV detection are: agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) (Munir et al, 2009b), counter immunoelectrophoresis (CIEP) Obi & Ojeh, 1989), dot enzyme immunoassay (Perl et al, 1995;Obi & Patrick, 1984), differential immunohistochemical staining of tissue sections (Saliki et al, 1994), haemagglutination (HA) and haemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests (Raj et al, 2008;Saravanan et al, 2006;Manoharan, 2005), virus isolation (Manoharan, 2005;Brindha et al, 2001), competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (c-ELISA) (Ezeibe et al, 2008;Anderson et al, 1991), novel sandwich ELISA (Munir et al, 2009b;Anderson & McKay, 1994), immuno-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (IC-ELISA) (Abubakar et al, 2008;Saravanan et al, 2008;Khan et al, 2007;Singh et al, 2004;Libeau et al, 1994), immunofiltration (Diop et al, 2005), and latex agglutination tests (Keerti et al, 2009).…”
Section: Laboratory Diagnosis Of Pprmentioning
confidence: 99%