牛布鲁氏菌病不同血清学检测方法的比较分析  

Comparative analysis detection methods of bovine brucellosis in different serological

作　　者：赵凤菊[1] 刘坤洋[1] 于学武[1] 闫明媚[1] 李井春[1] 张雅为[1] 顾贵波[1] 

机构地区：[1]辽宁省动物疫病预防控制中心,辽宁沈阳110164

出　　处：《现代畜牧兽医》2015年第3期12-15,共4页Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine

基　　金：辽宁省农业攻关支撑计划;编号:201404210

摘　　要：布鲁氏菌病的诊断主要采用细菌学和血清学方法,但因细菌学方法费时、费力、危险性高,血清学方法便成为布鲁氏菌病诊断的主要方法。本研究利用RBPT、SAT、CFT、i-ELISA和c-ELISA检测试剂盒对270份牛血清样品进行检测,评价不同检测方法对我国布鲁氏菌病的诊断价值。试验结果表明：RBPT检测为阳性的样品数量最多;SAT与CFT两种试验方法差异显著,漏检率可达23.17%~24.39%;i-ELISA、c-ELISA方法与RBPT的符合率、阳性检出率均高于SAT和CFT;i-ELISA、c-ELISA方法与SAT和CFT两种方法综合判定结果无显著差异;i-ELISA与c-ELISA两种检测方法无显著差异。Bacteriological and serological methods were commonly applied to diagnose brucellosis. But the bacteriological method was time consuming, laborious, and high-risks. Therefore, the erological methods had become the main method to diagnose brucellosis. In this study, RBPT, SAT,CFT, i-ELISA and c-ELISA were applied to dectect 270 bovine serum samples, to evaluate the diagnostic value of different methods for the brucellosis detection. The results showed that： most tests was positive of RBPT; SAT and CFT methods were significantly different, which undetected rate could reach 23.17%~24.39%; the coincidence of i-ELISA, c-ELISA with RBPT was higher than that of the SAT and CFT; meanwhile, the positive detection rate was higher than that of the SAT and CFT.However, there was no significant difference between the comprehensive determination results of SAT, CFT and that of i-ELISA, c-ELISA; and there was no significant difference between i-ELISA and c-ELISA.

关 键 词：虎红平板凝集试验 试管凝集试验 补体结合试验 ELISA方法 

分 类 号：S858.23[农业科学—临床兽医学]