几种布鲁氏菌病血清学诊断方法的比较研究  

Comparison of Diagnostic methods for Brucellosis

作　　者：范伟兴[1] 钟旗[2] 何倩倪[2] 吴冬玲[2] 蔡一飞[2] 赵智香[1] 

机构地区：[1]农业部动检疫所,山东青岛266032 [2]新疆畜牧科学院兽医研究所,830000

出　　处：《中国动物检疫》2006年第6期31-33,共3页China Animal Health Inspection

摘　　要：疑似布病感染的牛场采集牛奶和全血进行细菌分离,采集血清用虎红平板凝集试验(RBT)、试管凝集试验(SAT)、iELISA、cELISA进行抗体检测;采集免疫牛场和部分免疫羊场血清430份进行国内4个厂家生产的RBT抗原比对实验,并且选择特异性最高厂家的RBT抗原与SAT、iELISA和cELISA同时进行抗体检测。结果表明4个厂家生产的RBT抗原检测结果的一致性较差,RBT和SAT与加拿大布病参考实验室提供的iELISA和cELISA试剂盒检测结果相比一致率较高,但前两者均有较高的假阳性和假阴性。通过对比试验得出:在布病检疫时可选择特异性好的RBT抗原进行初筛,阳性结果用iELISA或cELISA进行确诊。430 serum samples from cattle and sheep were detected by Bengal test（RBT） with antigens from four manufactures in China, resulting in no identical results. The iELISA and cELISA kits for brucellosis from Canadian Brucellosis Reference Lab were used to evaluate the serological methods of RBT and standard tube agglutination（SAT）commonly used in diagnosing brucellosis in China. The RBT, SAT, iELISA and cELISA in detecting the infected cattle, almost obtained the same results （consistency rate was 85%）, but SAT and RBT had higher false positive rate （about 15%） and false negative rate （about 10%）. The data suggested that RBT screening test could be used in the field, and the positive results should be further confirmed by cELISA.

关 键 词：布鲁氏菌病 IELISA CELISA SAT RBT 

分 类 号：S858.28[农业科学—临床兽医学] S855.12[农业科学—兽医学]