Abstract
Fascioliasis is an important zoonotic disease prevalent in domestic animals and it leads to socioeconomic impact in rural farming communities of the developing world. The gold standard diagnosis of ruminant fascioliasis involves coprological detection of Fasciola spp. eggs or recovery of flukes in infected livers. Coprological analysis is unreliable in the patent period of chronic infection, and even then, its sensitivity is relatively low. Robust diagnostic tools that can promptly and accurately detect an active infection are crucial to avoid complications and further losses in ruminant livestock productivity, as well as to preserve the livelihood of communities at risk. Immunodiagnosis determined by antibody and antigen detection in the sera and faeces of infected ruminants provides a valuable alternative to the parasitological diagnostic approach. This review discusses current developments in immunological techniques by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the detection of ruminant fascioliasis and summarises the performance of various ELISAs in studies conducted to date. Indirect ELISAs demonstrated effective immunodiagnostic performance with high sensitivities and specificities. Cathepsin L ELISA is the most favourable antigen in serodiagnosis, among other recombinant and native proteins evaluated. Sandwich ELISA provides excellent sensitivity and specificity, which correlates well with the fluke burden. Utilising monoclonal antibodies in sandwich ELISA reduces the detection time and performance variations that commonly occur in polyclonal antibody ELISA.
Keywords: ELISA, fascioliasis, Fasciola spp., immunodiagnosis, ruminants
Introduction
Fascioliasis is a global helminthiasis caused by the trematode Fasciola spp., mainly Fasciola hepatica and Fasciola gigantica, which affect both animals and humans. In animals, it is a common infestation among ruminant livestock, such as cattle, sheep, goats and buffaloes (1–3). Its socioeconomic importance in communities whose livelihoods are highly dependent on livestock production is reflected by the substantial losses caused by reduced milk production in dairy animals, weight loss, disturbed growth rate, anaemia, breeding insufficiency, liver condemnation in abattoirs and mortality in acute cases of the infection (4–6), all of which amount to USD3.2 billion per year in cost (7).
Bovine fascioliasis has also gained interest with regard to its association with possible underestimation of bovine tuberculosis resulting from the downregulation of the T-helper type 1 (Th1) immune response that affects its diagnosis, particularly among the African cattle population (8). The vast distribution of fascioliasis includes many countries in different regions, such as Cameroon and Ethiopia in Africa; Peru and Bolivia in South America; Pakistan, Iran, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand in Asia; Ireland and Sweden in Europe; and Australia (7–11). As a plant-borne zoonotic disease, fascioliasis is typically transmitted via ingestion of aquatic vegetation contaminated with metacercariae (i.e. trematode cysts) released from intermediate lymnaeid vectors in freshwater. The parasites become excysted in the small intestine of the mammal host and penetrate the intestinal wall into the liver capsule, migrating through the liver parenchyma to develop into adult flukes in the biliary ducts (2).
Classical detection of fascioliasis requires either microscopic identification of Fasciola eggs in faeces by using sedimentation or flotation techniques, or recovery of the flukes from liver necropsy (8, 12, 13). Faecal detection of the parasite eggs is only possible in chronic infection (after 3 to 4 months) or within the patent period, whereas liver necropsy may overlook the early stage of Fasciola spp., thus leading to misdiagnosis (14). Both methods are time-consuming, labour-intensive and heavily rely on the skills of personnel involved in carrying out the procedures, which hinder their applicability in mass screening and surveillance settings (8, 12). Although liver necropsy has been shown to have near perfect sensitivity and specificity, faecal analysis has been known to exhibit varying sensitivities, to the extent of displaying false-negative findings in the presence of chronic or lighter infection (6, 8, 13, 15).
Immunodiagnostic techniques based on the detection of specific antibodies and antigens against Fasciola spp. in infected samples have been developed throughout the years as an alternative to coproscopy and liver necropsy techniques. The most important advantage of immunological approaches lies in their ability to detect infection in the prepatent period. Further, immunodiagnosis has been proposed as a promising approach for use in field studies among domestic animals or livestock due to its simpler procedures, proven diagnostic efficiency, and ability to yield fast results. This enables a more efficient and faster screening of large numbers of animals (16).
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most widely used test in the serodiagnosis of veterinary fascioliasis, whereas several older techniques, such as immunoelectrophoresis, complement fixation, double diffusion and haemagglutination, are now rarely used due to their relative complexity (17). This mini-review focuses on current developments in different types of ELISA in detecting antibodies and antigens against Fasciola spp. and summarises the performance of various ELISAs in studies conducted to date.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
ELISA is the most famous and frequently used immunological-based assay for screening fascioliasis in ruminants. The most common configurations of these assays include indirect ELISA and sandwich ELISA. Indirect ELISA is used for the detection of antibodies against a specific antigen, in which the antigen is immobilised in a solid matrix to capture target antibodies. The sandwich ELISA, by contrast, utilises an immobilised anti-Fasciola antibody and once a specific antigen is bound to the antibody, an antigen–antibody complex is formed that triggers enzymatic cleavage of a chromogenic substrate, allowing detection of colour changes. Table 1 summarises the performances of indirect and sandwich ELISAs used in immunodiagnosis studies of ruminant fascioliasis.
Table 1.
Summary of indirect and sandwich ELISA methods used in the immunodiagnosis of ruminant fascioliasis
| Test performance of different antigens used in indirect ELISA | Test performance of different antibodies used in sandwich ELISA |
|---|---|
|
|
Indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
Infection by Fasciola spp. invokes humoural immune response, which is mediated by antibodies in the body of an infected host; thus, detection of antibodies is considered a reliable and suitable approach to the antemortem diagnosis of fascioliasis (18). Antibodies against Fasciola spp. are detectable in sera as early as 2 weeks post-infection (12). The antibodies remain at high levels in the different hosts up to 20 weeks after infection, even after the eradication of flukes. Indirect ELISA is used for the quantitative estimation of antibodies in serum and other body fluids.
Numerous antigens, such as crude fluke extracts, excretory/secretory (ES) products, tegumental antigens and recombinant proteins, have been used in ELISA development for human and ruminant fascioliasis detection. Most developed ELISAs described in past studies are based on ES antigenic products (4, 19–21), although they are known to cross-react with Dictyocaulus viviparus, Nematodirus helvetianus and Ostertagia ostertagi (13). Currently, many of the commercially available ELISAs employ ES antigens or antigens purified from ES products in their kits, such as the DRG ELISA kit, the Bio-X ELISA kit and the IDEXX (previously known as Pourquier) ELISA kit (22). A recent study compared the performance of an in-house ES ELISA kit to coprological analysis and the commercial Bio-X Fasciola hepatica ELISA, which employs cathepsin L1 antigen (Bio-X Diagnostics, Belgium), showing 98% sensitivity and 96% specificity of the in-house kit, as well as near perfect agreement with the results of the commercial kit (4).
The IDEXX ELISA kit (IDEXX, USA), which employs a component of ES products known as the F2 antigen, was described as exhibiting superior diagnostic performance with both sensitivity and specificity of 100%. By comparison, in-house ES ELISAs exhibited comparable sensitivities, although a cross-reaction with D. viviparus was observed, resulting in a specificity of 99.3% (23). The sensitivity and specificity of the in-house ES ELISAs can be affected by seasonal variability, with winter months having the highest performance and summer and autumn months having the lowest (13). Nonetheless, in a different study, the sensitivity and specificity of ES ELISA were reported as 65.3% and 65.2%, respectively, a startling contrast to the aforementioned findings, which could be due to a variety of factors, including uncertain co-infection status and low infection burden (8).
Cathepsin L, a highly immunogenic cysteine protease derived from ES proteins, is secreted by the parasite in all stages of its development in the host. The protease is thought to aid in the migration of parasites in the host and contribute to the immunomodulation of the host body response (18). The use of a more purified component has been recommended to reduce the incidence of cross-reactivity by ELISA and to prevent a false diagnosis (21). Dipstick ELISA that applies 28 kDa cathepsin L (FgCL3) was shown to excel in the prepatent serodiagnosis of naturally infected goats with 100% sensitivity and specificity (16). Similarly, recombinant cathepsin L ELISA in other ruminants demonstrated excellent performance, with sensitivity and specificity of at least 99% and 96.5%, respectively (24). In a more recent study, recombinant cathepsin L was found to be the most favourable antigen used in the ELISA serodiagnosis when compared to the other recombinant and native proteins tested, with 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity (25).
Tegumental antigens (i.e. components that originate from tegument of Fasciola spp.) are another group of proteins that have been evaluated in ELISA and were found to be successful in detecting antibodies, despite having cross-reactivity (26). A previous study isolated a purified 16.5 kDa tegumental antigen (FhTP16.5) that reacted with the sera of infected rabbits and humans, although cross-reactions with other infections could not be assessed due to a lack of available samples (27).
Immunoassays based on antibody detection have been frequently employed in seroprevalence studies, some of which also include baseline analysis for future assessments of risk factors (11, 28, 29). Such an assay was tested in the evaluation of flukicide efficacy and was found to be impractical for this purpose, as the post-treatment antibody levels did not decrease (12, 30, 31). ELISA based on antibody detection is also limited by its inability to distinguish an active infection from a resolving one or past exposure to the parasite, thus requiring careful interpretation of the results. Despite these limitations, indirect ELISAs have demonstrated effective immunodiagnostic performance, with high sensitivities and specificities in previous studies (19, 13, 32).
Sandwich Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
Detection of Fasciola spp. antigens by sandwich ELISA is favoured due to its capacity to accurately reflect the presence of ongoing infection, as opposed to indirect ELISA. Sandwich ELISAs are frequently based on monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to minimise errors caused by batch-to-batch variations common in polyclonal antibody production. The use of mAbs in this assay improves the sensitivity and specificity of immunodiagnosis (21, 33). A commercialised capture sandwich ELISA, Bio K 201 kit (Bio X Diagnostics, Belgium) employing MM3 mAb for the detection of Fasciola spp. ES coproantigens has been developed following a study that established its excellent diagnostic performance and positive correlation with fluke burden (34). A more recent study confirmed these initial findings, reporting an absence of cross-reactivity with Paramphistomum cervi and Taenia hydatigena (35).
Subsequent studies using the same commercial kit, however, have yielded varying degrees of sensitivity and specificity in ruminant infections. A longitudinal study conducted in Scotland reported a significantly lower sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 99% (13). The sensitivity was improved with a modified cut-off point but only up to 80% compared to the value recommended by the manufacturer. In another study from Western Australia, similar results were obtained in the evaluation of the ELISA, which could only be improved with modified cut-off points, from 88% to 100%, 80% to 87% and 9% to 27% in sheep, cattle and horse infections, respectively. However, the degree of specificity was maintained in all scenarios at 99% (36).
Fasciola spp. coproantigens are detectable by ELISA at 6 weeks post-infection in most ruminants, which is later than antibody detection (6, 15). This highlights the assay’s lack of reliability in detecting the presence of immature flukes, although it performs adequately in adult infections (37). False-negatives have also been noted in light infections, as the dilution of coproantigens in the sample compromises the absorbance reading, resulting in poor detection. Coproantigen levels have been shown to correlate strongly with the fluke burden in animal hosts (15). A later study, however, reported a contradictory conclusion, which could be attributed to the low burden of flukes on the animals used in the study (38).
ELISA based on the detection of circulating antigens has also been shown to be a reliable approach and allows earlier identification of infection compared to coproantigen ELISA (39, 40). Sandwich ELISA based on specific mAb against F. gigantica circulating surface tegument antigen detected the antigen as early as 2 to 3 weeks post-infection. Although its sensitivity was determined to be 100%, cross-reactions were observed with other trematode species (33). An in-house ELISA that used mAb against cathepsin B3 protease in the sera of naturally infected cattle yielded 96.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity (39). A subsequent study on the detection of cathepsin L reported exceptional results, with 98.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity, as well as an improved detection limit (40). In both studies, the circulating antigens were detectable on day 1 post-infection. Coproantigen detection by ELISA is generally applied in efficacy assessments of flukicides, such as triclabendazole and albendazole, in domestic ruminants. The advantages and limitations of both indirect and sandwich ELISAs are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2.
Advantages and limitations of indirect and sandwich ELISA methods in the immunodiagnosis of ruminant fascioliasis
| Indirect ELISAs (detection of antibodies) | Sandwich ELISA (detection of antigens) | |
|---|---|---|
| Advantages | ||
| Limitations |
|
|
Conclusion
Fascioliasis is a significant concern in the livestock industry due to its substantial impact on the control and treatment-associated costs incurred, as well as the loss in milk and meat production. Indirect and sandwich ELISA have clear advantages over conventional diagnosis of fascioliasis by parasitological approach in terms of superior diagnostic efficiency and earlier detection in the prepatent period. Although indirect ELISAs have been broadly employed in diagnosis and field screenings, there is still evidence of variable findings when performed by different researchers and in different regions and/or host ruminant species. MM3, F2, cathepsin L and cathepsin B3 have demonstrated improved sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis using ELISA; however, an optimal and well-characterised antigen that could produce consistent results has yet to be discovered.
Sandwich ELISA based on coproantigen detection using specific monoclonal antibodies has provided an option for establishing a potential standardised methodology for prevalence and treatment efficacy research, although it is highly recommended that cut-off points be modified based on the local ruminant population prior to screening. However, light infections by Fasciola spp. further complicate diagnosis in ruminants and result in false negatives. Therefore, to improve diagnostic sensitivity, future research should investigate optimal antigen and monoclonal antibody production for antibody and antigen detection immunoassays, respectively.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia for supporting the student’s MSc research project.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
None.
Funds
The study was financially funded by the USM RUI grant 1001/PPSK/8012372.
Authors’ Contributions
Conception and design: NHS, WNAWAW
Analysis and interpretation of the data: NHS, NINJ, WNAWAW
Drafting of the article: NHS, NINJ, WNAWAW
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: NINJ, ANM, WNAWAW
Final approval of the article: NHS, NINJ, ANM, WNAWAW
Obtaining of funding: NINJ, WNAWAW
Administrative, technical or logistic support: ANM
Collection and assembly of data: NHS
References
- 1.Chen MG, Mott KE. Progress in assessment of morbidity due to Fasciola hepatica infection: a review of recent literature. Trop Dis Bull. 1990;87(4):R1–R38. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/61432 . [Google Scholar]
- 2.Andrew S. The life cycle of Fasciola hepatica. 3rd ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mas-Coma S, Valero MA, Bargues MD. Fasciola, lymnaeids and human fascioliasis, with a global overview on disease transmission, epidemiology, evolutionary genetics, molecular epidemiology and control. In: Rollinson D, Hay SI, editors. Advances in parasitology. Academic Press; 2009. pp. 41–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Salimi-Bejestani MR, McGarry JW, Felstead S, Ortiz P, Akca A, Williams DJL. Development of an antibody-detection ELISA for Fasciola hepatica and its evaluation against a commercially available test. Res Vet Sci. 2005;78(2):177–181. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2004.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rosilawati K, Ramli S, Saipul Bahari A. Fascioliasis in an adult draught buffalo in Malaysia: a case report. Malays J Vet Res. 2017;8(1):169–172. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Calvani NED, George SD, Windsor PA, Bush RD, Šlapeta J. Comparison of early detection of Fasciola hepatica in experimentally infected Merino sheep by real-time PCR, coproantigen ELISA and sedimentation. Vet Parasitol. 2018;251:85–89. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mehmood K, Zhang H, Sabir AJ, Abbas RZ, Ijaz M, Durrani AZ, et al. A review on epidemiology, global prevalence and economical losses of fasciolosis in ruminants. Microb Pathog. 2017;109:253–262. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kelly RF, Mazeri S, Hartley C, Hamman SM, Ngu Ngwa V, Nkongho EF, et al. Assessing the performance of a Fasciola gigantica serum antibody ELISA to estimate prevalence in cattle in Cameroon. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1762-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ibrahim N, Wasihun P, Tolosa T. Prevalence of bovine fasciolosis and economic importance due to liver condemnation at Kombolcha industrial abattoir, Ethiopia. Internet J Veterin Med. 2009;8(2):1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Khademvatan S, Majidiani H, Khalkhali H, Taghipour A, Asadi N, Yousefi E. Prevalence of fasciolosis in livestock and humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis in Iran. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;65:116–123. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2019.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ahmad Najib M, Noor Izani NJ, Wan Nor Amilah WAW, Muhamad Faez A, Shafizol Z. A scoping review of the prevalence of fascioliasis in Malaysia and risk factors for infection. Malays J Med Sci. 2020;27(1):22–36. doi: 10.21315/mjms2020.27.1.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Alvarez Rojas CA, Jex AR, Gasser RB, Scheerlinck JPY. Techniques for the diagnosis of Fasciola infections in animals: room for improvement. Adv Parasitol. 2014;85(17):65–107. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800182-0.00002-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mazeri S, Sargison N, Kelly RF, Bronsvoort BMDC, Handel I. Evaluation of the performance of five diagnostic tests for Fasciola hepatica infection in naturally infected cattle using a Bayesian no gold standard approach. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):1–22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bennema SC, Ducheyne E, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Hendrickx G, Charlier J. Relative importance of management, meteorological and environmental factors in the spatial distribution of Fasciola hepatica in dairy cattle in a temperate climate zone. Int J Parasitol. 2011;41(2):225–233. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Brockwell YM, Spithill TW, Anderson GR, Grillo V, Sangster NC. Comparative kinetics of serological and coproantigen ELISA and faecal egg count in cattle experimentally infected with Fasciola hepatica and following treatment with triclabendazole. Vet Parasitol. 2013;196(3–4):417–426. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gupta A, Dixit AK, Dixit P, Mahajan C, Sharma RL. Evaluation of dipstick-ELISA using 28kDa Fasciola gigantica cathepsin L cysteine proteinase (FgCL3) for serodiagnosis of fasciolosis in naturally infected goats. Vet Parasitol. 2011;176(2–3):165–169. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Mas-Coma S, Bargues MD, Valero MA. Diagnosis of human fascioliasis by stool and blood techniques: update for the present global scenario. Parasitology. 2014;141(14):1918–1946. doi: 10.1017/s0031182014000869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dalton JP, Neill SO, Stack C, Collins P, Walshe A, Sekiya M, et al. Fasciola hepatica cathepsin L-like proteases: biology, function, and potential in the development of first generation liver fluke vaccines. Int J Parasitol. 2003;33(11):1173–1181. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00171-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Krishna Murthy CM, Souza PED. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of Fasciola gigantica infection in cattle and buffaloes. J Parasit Dis. 2015;39(4):783–785. doi: 10.1007/s12639-013-0414-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Awad WS, Ibrahim AK, Salib FA. Using indirect ELISA to assess different antigens for the serodiagnosis of Fasciola gigantica infection in cattle, sheep and donkeys. Res Vet Sci. 2009;86(3):466–471. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sarkari B, Khabisi SA. Immunodiagnosis of human fascioliasis: an update of concepts and performances of the serological assays. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):OE05–OE10. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2017/26066.10086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Munita MP, Rea R, Martinez-Ibeas AM, Byrne N, Kennedy A, Sekiya M, et al. Comparison of four commercially available ELISA kits for diagnosis of Fasciola hepatica in Irish cattle. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-2160-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kuerpick B, Schnieder T, Strube C. Evaluation of a recombinant cathepsin L1 ELISA and comparison with the Pourquier and ES ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Fasciola hepatica. Vet Parasitol. 2013;193(1–3):206–213. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Cornelissen JBWJ, Gaasenbeek CPH, Borgsteede FHM, Holland WG, Harmsen MM, Boersma WJA. Early immunodiagnosis of fasciolosis in ruminants using recombinant Fasciola hepatica cathepsin L-like protease. Int J Parasitol. 2001;31(7):728–737. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(01)00175-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mokhtarian K, Meamar AR, Khoshmirsafa M, Razmjou E, Masoori L, Khanmohammadi M, et al. Comparative assessment of recombinant and native immunogenic forms of Fasciola hepatica proteins for serodiagnosis of sheep fasciolosis. Parasitol Res. 2018;117(1):225–232. doi: 10.1007/s00436-017-5696-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hillyer G, Serrano A. Fractionation of Fasciola hepatica tegument antigens and their application to the serodiagnosis of experimental fascioliasis by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Helminthol. 1986;60(3):173–178. doi: 10.1017/s0022149x00026055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gaudier JF, Cabán-Hernández K, Osuna A, Espino AM. Biochemical characterization and differential expression of a 16.5-kilodalton tegument-associated antigen from the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012;19(3):325–333. doi: 10.1128/cvi.05501-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Arenal A, García Y, Quesada L, Velázquez D, Sánchez D, Peña M, et al. Risk factors for the presence of Fasciola hepatica antibodies in bulk-milk samples and their association with milk production decreases, in Cuban dairy cattle. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1654-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zaraei M, Arefkhah N, Moshfe A, Ghorbani F, Mikaeili F, Sarkari B. Prevalence of bovine fascioliasis in a new-emerging focus of human fascioliasis in BoyerAhmad district, southwest of Iran. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;66:101350. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2019.101350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Castro E, Freyre A, Hernaández Z. Serological responses of cattle after treatment and during natural re-infection with Fasciola hepatica, as measured with a dot-ELISA system. Vet Parasitol. 2000;90(3):201–208. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00228-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sánchez-Andrade R, Paz-Silva A, Suárez J, Panadero R, Pedreira J, Díez-Baños P, et al. Effect of fasciolicides on the antigenaemia in sheep naturally infected with Fasciola hepatica. Parasitol Res. 2001;87(8):609–614. doi: 10.1007/s004360100425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Raina OK, Yadav SC, Sriveny D, Gupta SC. Immuno-diagnosis of bubaline fasciolosis with Fasciola gigantica cathepsin-L and recombinant cathepsin L 1-D proteases. Acta Trop. 2006;98(2):145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2006.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Viyanant V, Krailas D, Sobhon P, Upatham ES, Kusamran T, Chompoochan T, et al. Diagnosis of cattle fasciolosis by the detection of a circulating antigen using a monoclonal antibody. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 1997;15(3):153–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Mezo M, Gonzalez-Warleta M, Carro C, Ubeira FM. An ultrasensitive capture ELISA for detection of Fasciola hepatica coproantigens in sheep and cattle using a new monoclonal antibody (MM3) J Parasitol. 2004;90(4):845–852. doi: 10.1645/ge-192r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kajugu PE, Hanna REB, Edgar HW, Forster FI, Malone FE, Brennan GP, et al. Specificity of a coproantigen ELISA test for fasciolosis: lack of cross-reactivity with Paramphistomum cervi and Taenia hydatigena. Vet Rec. 2012;171(20):502. doi: 10.1136/vr.101041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Palmer DG, Lyon J, Palmer MA, Forshaw D. Evaluation of a copro-antigen ELISA to detect Fasciola hepatica infection in sheep, cattle and horses. Aust Vet J. 2014;92(9):357–361. doi: 10.1111/avj.12224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.George SD, Vanhoff K, Baker K, Lake L, Rolfe PF, Seewald W, et al. Application of a coproantigen ELISA as an indicator of efficacy against multiple life stages of Fasciola hepatica infections in sheep. Vet Parasitol. 2017;246:60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.08.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Martínez-Sernández V, Orbegozo-Medina RA, González-Warleta M, Mezo M, Ubeira FM. Rapid enhanced MM3-copro ELISA for detection of Fasciola coproantigens. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(7):1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Anuracpreeda P, Chawengkirtikul R, Tinikul Y, Poljaroen J, Chotwiwatthanakun C, Sobhon P. Diagnosis of Fasciola gigantica infection using a monoclonal antibody-based sandwich ELISA for detection of circulating cathepsin B3 protease. Acta Trop. 2013;127(1):38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Anuracpreeda P, Chawengkirttikul R, Sobhon P. Immunodiagnosis of Fasciola gigantica infection using monoclonal antibody-based sandwich ELISA and immunochromatographic assay for detection of circulating cathepsin L1 protease. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):1–22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]