Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A study was carried out to compare the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and blood polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for diagnosis of paratuberculosis in cattle and sheep. For cattle, a set of 278 samples from 1 paratuberculosis-affected Friesian farm was used; it included 80 ELISA-positive samples and 198 ELISA-negative samples from an age-matched group. Ninety-four samples were from heifers and 184 were from 2-5-year-old cows. The overall analysis showed a clear association (Fisher exact test [FET] P = 0.0049) but a weak negative agreement (45.3%, kappa = -0.1665 +/- 0.0994) between the 2 tests. It reflected a moderate agreement among heifers (87.7%, kappa = 0.4471 +/- 0.2435) and a moderate disagreement among cows (62.7%, kappa = -0.3670 +/- 0.1057). For sheep, 496 blood samples from 53 Latxa dairy flocks were used; 180 of the blood samples were from dam/offspring pairs. The overall association between the 2 tests on ovine samples was strong (FET, P = 0.0005), whereas the agreement was low (kappa = 0.1622 +/- 0.1188). There was slightly better agreement for ewes (kappa = 0.2135 +/- 0.1992) than for lambs (kappa = 0.1193 +/- 0.1301). There was also a highly unlikely proportion of dam/offspring positive results (FET, P < 0.0001, kappa = 0.6269 +/- 0.1854). Four of 6 lambs that were necropsied 1 year after testing had paratuberculosis microscopic lesions in the ileocecal valve (3 lambs) or a PCR-positive result (4 lambs). These results suggest that blood PCR testing might be a potentially useful new approach in paratuberculosis diagnosis, especially in young animals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juste et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: