fbpx
Sign up now!
Don't show this again

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Poultry Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app
X
Share
X

REPORTS

Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report

Favorites

Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
CREATE
X
NEXT
POULTRY PORK
follow us


You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Poultry Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Sponsored By Zoetis

.

Reducing false positives pays in ELISA mycoplasma testing

Poultry producers should consider specificity when selecting a Mycoplasma ELISA test to avoid costs associated with false positives, advise researchers at Zoetis Inc.

New studies, presented at the 2014 American Association of Avian Pathologists conference, compared the specificity, or the ability to detect true negative samples, of three tests approved for Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG), M. synoviae (MS) and MG/MS combination testing.1

In the first two studies, Kit A (ProFLOK® MG/MS) was significantly more specific (p ≤0.05), meaning it yielded fewer false positives, than another commercial ELISA assay for MG/MS testing, Kit B. Positive tests were confirmed using hemagglutination inhibition (HI).

The third study compared the specificity of Kits A, B and a third commercial ELISA test, Kit C, to HI. For MG, there were no significant differences between Kits A, B and C. There were also no significant differences for MS between Kit A and Kit C, but both were significantly more specific (p ≤0.05) than Kit B.

For MG/MS combination screening, Kits A and B were significantly more specific (p ≤0.05) than Kit C (for detailed results, see Table 1).

These differences in specificity have meaningful economic consequences for producers, says Dan Domingo, DVM, global director of diagnostic medicine for poultry at Zoetis.

“For each positive sample, separate HI assays must be performed. At this particular lab, HI tests cost $1 or $2 each,” he says. “Multiply that cost by the number of false positives for each test per year and we’re looking at a substantial economic difference.”

Table 1. Specificity of three commercial Mycoplasma ELISA kits compared to HI. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference (p≤0.05).

Table 1. Specificity of three commercial Mycoplasma ELISA kits compared to HI. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference (p≤0.05).

 

 

 

 

1 Zedek, a et al. Comparison of Commercially Available Mycoplasma Kit (abstract). Proceedings of the annual conference of the American Association of Avian Pathologists, 2014; 21-22.

 

 

 

 




Posted on August 5, 2015

tags: , ,
RELATED NEWS



You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.