Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1980 Feb;11(2):149–152. doi: 10.1128/jcm.11.2.149-152.1980

Indirect hemagglutination employing enterobacterial common antigen and Yersinia somatic antigen: a technique to differentiate brucellosis from infections involving cross-reacting Yersinia enterocolitica.

K R Mittal, I D Ricciardi, I R Tizard
PMCID: PMC273342  PMID: 6766951

Abstract

The existence of enterobacterial common antigen in Yersinia enterocolitica and its absence in Brucella abortus were utilized in an attempt to provide a method to distinguish Brucella infections from infections with cross-reacting Yersinia. The indirect hemagglutination test was employed for this purpose. In experimental laboratory animals, the presence of anti-enterobacterial common antigen was found to be indicative of prior exposure to Y. enterocolitica rather than B. abortus. In cattle, however, low titers of anti-enterobacterial common antigen were present in all animals. It was observed that anti-enterobacterial common antigen titers either equaled or exceeded anti-Yersinia O titers in Yersinia-exposed animals, whereas in animals infected with B. abortus the anti-Yersinia O titer generally exceeded the anti-enterobacterial common antigen titer.

Full text

PDF
151

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ahvonen P., Jansson E., Aho K. Marked cross-agglutination between Brucellae and a subtype of Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1969;75(2):291–295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Corbel M. J., Cullen G. A. Differentiation of the serologicl response to Yersinia enterocolitica and Brucella abortus in cattle. J Hyg (Lond) 1970 Dec;68(4):519–530. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400042455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hurvell B. Differentiation of cross-reacting antibodies against brucella abortus and yersinia enterocolitica by electroimmuno assay. Acta Vet Scand. 1975;16(2):318–320. doi: 10.1186/BF03546687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Maeland J. A., Digranes A. Common enterobacterial antigen in Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B. 1975 Aug;83(4):382–386. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1975.tb00116.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mittal K. R., Tizard I. R. A simple technique to differentiate between animals infected with Yersinia enterocolitica IX and those infected with Brucella abortus. Res Vet Sci. 1979 Mar;26(2):248–250. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Morgan W. J. The serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet Rec. 1967 May 27;80(21):612–620. doi: 10.1136/vr.80.21.612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mäkelä P. H., Mayer H. Enterobacterial common antigen. Bacteriol Rev. 1976 Sep;40(3):591–632. doi: 10.1128/br.40.3.591-632.1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. SUZUKI T., GORZYNSKI E. A., NETER E. SEPARATION BY ETHANOL OF COMMON AND SOMATIC ANTIGENS OF ENTEROBACTERIACEAE. J Bacteriol. 1964 Nov;88:1240–1243. doi: 10.1128/jb.88.5.1240-1243.1964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES