Immunodiagnosis of taeniasis by coproantigen detection | Parasitology | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Summary

Immunodiagnostic tests for Taenia-specific faecal antigen based on polyclonal rabbit antisera against Taenia saginata or Taenia solium proglottid extracts in capture-type ELISA assays have been developed. Taenia-specific antigen was detected in detergent-solubilized faecal extracts from T. solium- and T. saginata-infected hosts. Coproantigen from T. solium-infected hamsters did not cross-react with faeces from rodents infected with Hymenolepis diminuta, H. citelli, H. micro-stoma, Necator americanus, Strongyloides ratti or Nematospiroides dubius and faeces from uninfected animals. When the T. saginata-capture ELISA was tested with faecal samples positive for T. solium antigen, no cross-reactions were obtained. However, faecal samples from humans infected with T. solium or T. saginata, including some with extremely low egg counts, were cross-reactive by either test. Nevertheless, considerably higher O.D. values were obtained with stool samples from Taenia patients compared to Hymenolepis nana-infected or uninfected individuals. Two individuals, infected with Taenia sp. and positive for coproantigens by ELISA, became antigen-negative 6 days after treatment with Niclosamide. The possibility of developing species-specific immunodiagnostic tests for human taeniasis through coproantigen detection is discussed.

References

Allan, J. C. & Craig, P. S. (1989). Corproantigens in gut tapeworm infections: Hymenolepis diminuta in rats. Parasitology Research 76, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Flentje, V. B. & Padelt, H. (1981). Wert einer serologischen Diagnostik der Taenia saginata Infestation des Menschen. Angewandte Parasitologie 22, 65–8.Google Scholar

Flisser, A. (1985). Cysticercosis: a major threat to human health and livestock production. Food Technology 39, 61–4.Google Scholar

Gasser, R. B., Lightowlers, M. W., Obendorf, D. F., Jenkins, D. J. & Rickard, M. D. (1988). Evaluation of a serological test system for the diagnosis of natural Echinococcus granulosus infection in dogs using E. granulosus protoscolex and oncosphere antigens. Australian Veterinary Journal 65, 369–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heath, D. D., Lawrence, B., Glennie, A. & Twaalfhoven, H. (1985). The use of excretory and secretory antigens of the scolex of Taenia ovis for the serodiagnosis of infection in dogs. Journal of Parasitology 71, 192–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jenkins, D. J. & Rickard, M. D. (1985). Specific antibody responses to Taenia hydatigena, Taenia pisiformis and Echinococcus granulosus infection in dogs. Australian Veterinary Journal 62, 72–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jenkins, D. J. & Rickard, M. D. (1986). Specific antibody responses in dogs experimentally infected with Echinococcus granulosus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 35, 345–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Machnicka-Roguska, B. & Zwierz, C. (1970). Intradermal test with antigenic fractions in Taenia saginata infection. Ada Parasitologica Polonica 18, 293–9.Google Scholar

Sarti-Gutierrez, E. J., Schantz, P. M., Lara-Aguillera, R., Gomez Dandoy, H. & Flisser, A. (1988). Taenia solium taeniasis and cysticercosis in a Mexican village. Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 39, 194–8.Google Scholar

Verster, A. (1974). The golden hamster as a definitive host of Taenia solium and Taenia saginata. Onderspoort Journal of Veterinary Research 41, 23–8.Google ScholarPubMed

Viscidi, R., Laughon, B. E., Hanvanich, M. & Bartlett, R. H. (1984). Improved enzyme immunoassays for the detection of antigens in fecal specimens. Investigation and correction of interfering factors. Journal of Immunological Methods 67, 129–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed