Number of the records: 1  

Comparison of diagnostic methods for Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae detection in salmonid fish

  1. 1.
    SYSNO ASEP0541652
    Document TypeJ - Journal Article
    R&D Document TypeJournal Article
    Subsidiary JČlánek ve WOS
    TitleComparison of diagnostic methods for Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae detection in salmonid fish
    Author(s) Seidlová, V. (CZ)
    Syrová, E. (CZ)
    Minářová, H. (CZ)
    Zukal, Jan (UBO-W) RID, ORCID, SAI
    Baláž, V. (CZ)
    Němcová, M. (CZ)
    Papežíková, I. (CZ)
    Pikula, J. (CZ)
    Schmidt-Posthaus, H. (CH)
    Mareš, J. (CZ)
    Palíková, M. (CZ)
    Number of authors11
    Source TitleJournal of Fish Diseases. - : Wiley - ISSN 0140-7775
    Roč. 44, č. 8 (2021), s. 1147-1153
    Number of pages7 s.
    Languageeng - English
    CountryGB - United Kingdom
    Keywordsdiagnostic sensitivity ; diagnostic specificity ; immunohistochemistry ; polymerase chain reaction ; prevalence ; proliferative kidney disease
    Subject RIVGL - Fishing
    OECD categoryMarine biology, freshwater biology, limnology
    Method of publishingOpen access
    Institutional supportUBO-W - RVO:68081766
    UT WOS000638551400001
    EID SCOPUS85104125419
    DOI10.1111/jfd.13375
    AnnotationDiagnostic accuracy of pathogen detection depends upon the selection of suitable tests. Problems can arise when the selected diagnostic test gives false-positive or false-negative results, which can affect control measures, with consequences for the population health. The aim of this study was to compare sensitivity of different diagnostic methods IHC, PCR and qPCR detecting Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae, the causative agent of proliferative kidney disease in salmonid fish and as a consequence differences in disease prevalence. We analysed tissue from 388 salmonid specimens sampled from a recirculating system and rivers in the Czech Republic. Overall prevalence of T. bryosalmonae was extremely high at 92.0%, based on positive results of at least one of the above-mentioned screening methods. IHC resulted in a much lower detection rate (30.2%) than both PCR methods (qPCR32: 65.4%, PCR: 81.9%). While qPCR32 produced a good match with IHC (60.8%), all other methods differed significantly (p < .001) in the proportion of samples determined positive. Both PCR methods showed similar sensitivity, though specificity (i.e., the proportion of non-diseased fish classified correctly) differed significantly (p < .05). Sample preservation method significantly (p < .05) influenced the results of PCR, with a much lower DNA yield extracted from paraffin-embedded samples. Use of different methods that differ in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity resulted in random and systematic diagnosis errors, illustrating the importance of interpreting the results of each method carefully.
    WorkplaceInstitute of Vertebrate Biology
    ContactHana Slabáková, slabakova@ivb.cz, Tel.: 543 422 524
    Year of Publishing2022
    Electronic addresshttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.13375
Number of the records: 1  

  This site uses cookies to make them easier to browse. Learn more about how we use cookies.