IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0265569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Field evaluation of the enhanced MM3-COPRO ELISA test for the diagnosis of Fasciola hepatica infection in sheep

Author

Listed:
  • Mercedes Mezo
  • Marta González-Warleta
  • José Antonio Castro-Hermida
  • Victoria Martínez-Sernández
  • Florencio M Ubeira

Abstract

Fasciolosis is a severe zoonosis responsible for major economic losses in livestock. The enhanced MM3-COPRO test (eMM3-COPRO) and the commercial version BIO K 201 (Bio-X Diagnostics, Rochefort, Belgium) are widely used as immunodiagnostic tools for the specific detection of coproantigens released by Fasciola during the late prepatent and patent stages of infection. However, performance of the eMM3-COPRO has never been evaluated under field conditions. To address this gap, a large number of ovine faecal samples, collected in a region where fasciolosis is endemic (Galicia, NW Spain), were analyzed. Two groups of sheep flocks were selected according to the Fasciola infection status: ‘Fasciola-free’ and ‘Fasciola-infected’ flocks. ‘Fasciola-free’ flocks were seronegative flocks with no history of fasciolosis detected by either coproscopy or necropsy in the last 5 years. Faecal samples from these sheep were used to calculate a cut-off value for infection (OD = 0.021). The cut-off was calculated using a bootstrap resampling method that enables estimation of the sampling distribution of the statistical parameters without making assumptions about the underlying data distribution. ‘Fasciola-infected’ flocks were characterized by high seroprevalence, a history of fasciolosis and periodical treatment with flukicides. Samples from these flocks were used to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the eMM3-COPRO relative to coproscopy, which although limited by poor sensitivity is the only reference test available for diagnosing fasciolosis in vivo. To overcome this limitation, all animals classified positive by eMM3-COPRO were treated with triclabendazole and then retested. The eMM3-COPRO displayed higher sensitivity than coproscopy, as it detected coproantigens in all samples with positive coproscopy and in 12% of samples with negative coproscopy. The test also proved highly specific as coproantigens disappeared after the treatment. The eMM3-COPRO was less time consuming than coproscopy, particularly when the procedure involved numerous samples, and showed promise as a tool for monitoring flukicide efficacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mercedes Mezo & Marta González-Warleta & José Antonio Castro-Hermida & Victoria Martínez-Sernández & Florencio M Ubeira, 2022. "Field evaluation of the enhanced MM3-COPRO ELISA test for the diagnosis of Fasciola hepatica infection in sheep," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265569
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265569
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265569&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0265569?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265569. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.