Comparison of the brucellin skin test with the lymphocyte transformation test in bovine brucellosis.

C C Chukwu
{"title":"Comparison of the brucellin skin test with the lymphocyte transformation test in bovine brucellosis.","authors":"C C Chukwu","doi":"10.1017/s002217240006616x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The brucellin skin test and the lymphocyte transformation test were compared in heifers infected with virulent Brucella abortus strain 544, heifers vaccinated against brucellosis and unexposed cattle. Results of the in vitro lymphocyte transformation test were consistently positive for all 9 Brucella-infected heifers while the skin test was consistently positive for 6 of the 9 heifers. In 7 heifers repeatedly vaccinated with B. abortus strain-19 vaccine the in vitro test classified 3 animals as positive whereas the skin test identified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. Four heifers injected with a single dose of B. abortus strain 19 were consistently negative to the lymphocyte transformation test while the skin test classified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. The skin test gave strong reactions indicative of Brucella infection in heifers vaccinated with 'Duphavac' and 'Abortox' vaccines whereas the lymphocyte transformation test was consistently negative with these vaccines. The two tests were negative in unexposed cattle. It was concluded that the in vitro test correlated better with Brucella isolation than the in vivo test did and that the lack of agreement between the results of the two tests is likely to be due to the different antigens used in the assays.</p>","PeriodicalId":15931,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hygiene","volume":"96 3","pages":"403-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s002217240006616x","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s002217240006616x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The brucellin skin test and the lymphocyte transformation test were compared in heifers infected with virulent Brucella abortus strain 544, heifers vaccinated against brucellosis and unexposed cattle. Results of the in vitro lymphocyte transformation test were consistently positive for all 9 Brucella-infected heifers while the skin test was consistently positive for 6 of the 9 heifers. In 7 heifers repeatedly vaccinated with B. abortus strain-19 vaccine the in vitro test classified 3 animals as positive whereas the skin test identified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. Four heifers injected with a single dose of B. abortus strain 19 were consistently negative to the lymphocyte transformation test while the skin test classified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. The skin test gave strong reactions indicative of Brucella infection in heifers vaccinated with 'Duphavac' and 'Abortox' vaccines whereas the lymphocyte transformation test was consistently negative with these vaccines. The two tests were negative in unexposed cattle. It was concluded that the in vitro test correlated better with Brucella isolation than the in vivo test did and that the lack of agreement between the results of the two tests is likely to be due to the different antigens used in the assays.

牛布鲁氏菌病布鲁氏菌素皮肤试验与淋巴细胞转化试验的比较。
用布氏菌皮肤试验和淋巴细胞转化试验对感染了强毒流产布氏菌544株的母牛、接种过布氏菌的母牛和未接触过布氏菌的母牛进行了比较。所有9头感染布鲁氏菌的小母牛的体外淋巴细胞转化试验结果一致呈阳性,而9头小母牛中的6头皮肤试验结果一致呈阳性。在7头反复接种流产b -19株疫苗的小母牛中,体外试验显示3只动物呈阳性,而皮肤试验在大部分实验期间确定所有动物均为感染。在实验的大部分时间里,4头母牛注射单剂量的流产B. 19株后,淋巴细胞转化试验均呈阴性,皮肤试验均为感染。皮肤试验显示,接种“杜帕瓦茨”和“阿波托克斯”疫苗的小牛出现强烈反应,表明布鲁氏菌感染,而这些疫苗的淋巴细胞转化试验始终呈阴性。这两项检测在未暴露的牛中呈阴性。结论是,与体内试验相比,体外试验与布鲁氏菌分离的相关性更好,两种试验结果之间缺乏一致性可能是由于试验中使用的抗原不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信