1.
Dear Editor:
We read with interest the pilot study by Mejia et al. (2025) introducing the Tc‐24 recombinant antigen ELISA for canine Chagas disease. The assay's reported sensitivity and specificity are encouraging, but we believe the broader implications of this tool require deeper scrutiny.
Strain Diversity and Antigenic Conservation: while Tc‐24 is described as highly conserved across T. cruzi lineages, field studies demonstrate that serologic test performance can vary substantially across discrete typing units (DTUs) (Truyens et al. 2021; Fontes et al. 2024). In Louisiana, for example, Dumonteil et al. (2020) reported differential reactivity in dogs infected with TcII and TcVI strains. It remains uncertain whether Tc‐24 truly provides pan‐DTU coverage in practice. We suggest future studies adopt geographically comparative validation cohorts to test the robustness of Tc‐24 across the Americas.
Serology versus Infection Status: the study acknowledges the limitation of relying solely on antibody detection, but the implications warrant further consideration. Seropositivity may reflect prior exposure rather than active infection, leading to potential overestimation of prevalence (Ascanio et al. 2024). Integration of dual‐platform diagnostics—for example, Tc‐24 ELISA combined with PCR or antigen detection—could better define infection dynamics. Without molecular confirmation, seroepidemiologic estimates risk misinforming surveillance and control strategies.
Cross‐Reactivity in Co‐Endemic Settings: although the authors report minimal cross‐reactivity with Leishmania in Texas, canine leishmaniasis is increasingly reported in North America (Rodrigues et al. 2022). Moreover, multiplex microsphere assays (Rodriguez et al. 2023) have shown that multi‐antigen panels can better discriminate between infections in co‐endemic areas. We recommend that Tc‐24 ELISA be evaluated within multi‐pathogen diagnostic frameworks, where its added diagnostic value can be measured relative to existing platforms.
Translational and Programmatic Use: the authors briefly mention potential field applications, but a clearer discussion of how this assay could be deployed is warranted. For example:
Could Tc‐24 ELISA function as a low‐cost screening test within kennel surveillance, followed by confirmatory molecular testing?
How should cut‐off thresholds be adapted for longitudinal monitoring where antibody titres may fluctuate?
What role might this assay play in distinguishing ‘sentinel dogs’ for community‐level surveillance in endemic regions?
By situating Tc‐24 within a diagnostic ecology framework—where tools are complementary rather than standalone—its translational value could be more fully appreciated.
In summary, Mejia et al. (2025) provided important pilot data, but the next phase should emphasize cross‐DTU validation, integration with molecular tools and deployment strategies within real‐world surveillance systems. Only through this broader perspective can Tc‐24 ELISA move from proof‐of‐concept towards meaningful impact in veterinary and zoonotic Chagas disease control.
Author Contributions
N.K.R. conceived and drafted the letter. C.N.G., K.L.S. and S.K.R. contributed to the writing, critical revision, and editing of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.
Funding
The authors have nothing to report.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Statement
The authors have nothing to report.
Acknowledgement
We thank Mejia et al. (2025) for their important contribution in developing the Tc‐24 ELISA, which provides the foundation for our commentary.
Data Availability Statement
The authors have nothing to report.
References
- Ascanio, L. C. , Carroll S., Paniz‐Mondolfi A., and Ramirez J. D.. 2024. “In Vitro Diagnostic Methods of Chagas Disease in the Clinical Laboratory: A Scoping Review.” Frontiers in Microbiology 15: 1393992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dumonteil, E. , Elmayan A., Majeau A., et al. 2020. “Genetic Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi Parasites Infecting Dogs in Southern Louisiana Sheds Light on Parasite Transmission Cycles and Serological Diagnostic Performance.” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14, no. 12: e0008932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fontes, N. D. , Habib F. L., Leony L. M., et al. 2024. “Evaluation of Chimeric Recombinant Antigens for the Serodiagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi in Dogs: a Promising Tool for Chagas Disease Surveillance.” Parasites & Vectors 17, no. 1: 305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mejia, R. , Verocai G. G., Mosley I. A., et al. 2025. “Evaluation of a Novel Tc‐24 Recombinant Antigen ELISA for Serologic Detection of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Dogs: A Pilot Study.” Veterinary Medicine and Science 11: e70570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigues, E. S. , Santos G. Q., da Silva M. V., et al. 2022. “Chagas Immunochromatographic Rapid Test in the Serological Diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Wild and Domestic Canids.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 12: 835383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, C. A. , Busselman R. E., Shen H., Saunders A. B., Tarleton R., and Hamer S. A.. 2023. “Validation of a Multiplex Microsphere Immunoassay for Detection of Antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi in Dogs.” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 35, no. 6: 704–709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Truyens, C. , Dumonteil E., Alger J., et al. 2021. “Geographic Variations in Test Reactivity for the Serological Diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection.” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 59, no. 12: e0106221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The authors have nothing to report.