Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food and Waterborne Parasitology logoLink to Food and Waterborne Parasitology
. 2019 Feb 5;14:e00032. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2018.e00032

International Commission on Trichinellosis: Recommendations on the use of serological tests for the detection of Trichinella infection in animals and humans

Fabrizio Bruschi a,⁎, Maria Angeles Gómez-Morales b, Dolores E Hill c
PMCID: PMC7034015  PMID: 32095603

Abstract

Serological methods are widely used for detection of infections in animals and humans. The recommendations provided here take into account the best current methods for the serological detection of Trichinella infection. They are based on current scientific information including unpublished data from laboratories with relevant expertise in this field. These recommendations represent the official position of the International Commission on Trichinellosis (ICT) regarding acceptable methods for the use and interpretation of serology testing for Trichinella infection in animals and humans.

The ICT does not recommend use of serological methods for testing individual carcasses of animals at slaughter for assuring food safety. For detection of human infections, for epidemiological studies in animals and humans, and for monitoring Trichinella infection in swine, the ICT recommends ELISA using excretory/secretory (ES) antigens. These antigens are obtained from the in-vitro maintenance of Trichinella spiralis muscle larvae and are recognized by sera from hosts infected by all Trichinella species and genotypes identified thus far. In most situations, positive results obtained by ELISA should be confirmed by western blot. Serological assays should be properly standardized and validated for their intended purpose. The components of the test that are critical for maintaining suitable performance should be identified and appropriately checked. Users of commercial tests should verify that the test has been adequately evaluated by an independent body. Serology is useful for detecting Trichinella in animals and humans but its limitations need to be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Keywords: ELISA, Western blotting, Serology, Anti-Trichinella IgG, Trichinella infection

Highlights

  • •

    Trichinella serology is not recommended for testing individual animals to assure food safety.

  • •

    Serological assays should be standardized and validated for their intended purpose.

  • •

    ELISA using excretory/secretory antigens is the test recommended by the ICT.

1. Introduction

Trichinella spp. are the causative agents of human trichinellosis, a disease that not only is a public health hazard by affecting humans but also represents an economic problem in swine production and food safety. To date, twelve taxa are known and these include encapsulating species Trichinella spiralis, Trichinella nativa, Trichinella britovi, Trichinella murrelli, Trichinella nelsoni, Trichinella patagoniensis and genotypes Trichinella T6, T8 and T9 exclusive to mammals, and non-encapsulating species Trichinella pseudospiralis, Trichinella papuae and Trichinella zimbabwensis infecting mammals and birds, or mammals and reptiles (Korhonen et al., 2016).

Serological methods are widely used for detection of infections in animals and humans The recommendations provided here take into account the best current methods for serological detection of Trichinella infection in animals and humans and provide guidance on the appropriate use of these serological tools. The International Commission on Trichinellosis (ICT) does not recommend use of serological methods for testing individual carcasses of animals at slaughter for the purpose of assuring food safety (Gamble et al., 2000). This recommendation is consistent with the legislation of many governmental bodies, under which meat inspection programs for Trichinella in pork, horse and game meats are performed using a direct method such as artificial digestion (EC, 2015; OIE, 2017; ISO, 2015).

2. Assays

Many types of serological assays have been, and continue to be, used for the detection of Trichinella infections in animals and man. Serological assays include, but are not limited to:

For detection of infection in swine and humans, ELISA is the most commonly used screening test; positive results should be confirmed by WB (Dupouy-Camet and Bruschi, 2007).

The main advantages of ELISA are high throughput potential, low cost, reliability, standardization, and an acceptable balance between sensitivity and specificity. It is the only serological method in animals recommended by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, 2017). For these reasons, the ELISA will be the primary focus of these recommendations. Other types of serological tests can have practical applications; therefore, the principles for use of the ELISA (requirements for performance, suitability for the particular host species, etc.) should be considered in selecting any serological test for detection of Trichinella infection.

2.1. Antigens

For serological testing by ELISA, the ICT recommends the use of ES antigens obtained from in-vitro maintenance of Trichinella ML (Gamble et al., 1983, Gamble et al., 2000, Gamble et al., 2004). This antigen preparation contains a group of immunodominant, structurally-related glycoproteins that are recognized by animals and humans infected with Trichinella spiralis, or any of the other species of Trichinella currently known (Appleton et al., 1991; Ortega-Pierres et al., 1996). When compared with somatic worm extracts, these antigens have limited cross-reactivity with sera from animals infected with other parasites (Davidson et al., 2009; Gamble et al., 2004; Gómez-Morales et al., 2009, Gómez-Morales et al., 2012; Møller et al., 2005; Nöckler and Kapel, 2007; Nöckler et al., 2004; Szell et al., 2012). Numerous methods have been published for the preparation of ES antigens; however, for consistency among preparations and reproducibility of ELISA data, the ICT recommends only that method published in the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (OIE, 2017). Trichinella ES antigens are routinely prepared from T. spiralis ML because this species is readily maintained in laboratory animals, and these antigens are recognized by sera from hosts infected by all Trichinella species and genotypes identified thus far (Appleton et al., 1991).

2.2. Reagents

To maximize test sensitivity and specificity, it is recommended that a species-specific anti-IgG conjugate rather than a Protein A (or similar) conjugate be used in the ELISA or WB (Gamble et al., 2004).

2.3. Sample collection

Serum is the preferred sample material for indirect detection of Trichinella infection using serology. After collection, blood samples should be clotted, sera collected, and, if not used for testing immediately, frozen at −20 °C. Samples frozen at −20 °C may be used for several months; however, it is recommended that repeated freezing and thawing of samples should be avoided in order to prevent antibody degradation and an increase in non-specific reactivity. If serum samples are to be used frequently, they should be stored in aliquots. For periods of storage >3 months, serum samples should be frozen at −80 °C or lyophilized. If freezing is not possible, 1% merthiolate (used at 1:10,000 dilution) or another suitable preservative should be added (OIE, 2013; Harlow and Lane, 1988).

An alternative to conventional use of blood or serum samples is blood spots on filter paper. This method is useful when there are no facilities to store frozen samples (Owen et al., 2005; Vu Thi et al., 2010). Blood spots may be stored at room temperature in closed plastic bags to prevent rehydration.

For tests performed on animal carcasses, where blood or serum is not available, tissue fluids can be used as alternative sources of antibody (Gamble et al., 2004). Usually, samples of tissue fluids are used at a lower dilution (higher concentration) in serological assays as antibody concentration in tissue fluids may be 10-fold lower than that found in serum (Gómez-Morales et al., 2014; Kapel et al., 1998; Møller et al., 2005). When meat samples are used for the extraction of tissue fluids it is recommended to wash the tissue, blot with paper towel to remove excess water, cut it into small pieces, freeze and thaw it and use the extracts thus obtained.

3. Validation and quality control

An acceptable serological assay should be properly standardized and validated for its intended purpose. The components of the test that are critical for maintaining suitable performance (critical control points) should be identified and appropriately monitored. Furthermore, the test should be conducted within a laboratory quality system. In particular, each batch or lot of antigens should be evaluated by checkerboard titration using standardized positive and negative control sera.

Requirements for the development and validation of a serological test in animal populations are specified by the OIE (OIE, 2013). Users of commercial tests should verify that the test has been adequately evaluated using international reference standards and has received the approval of relevant regulatory authorities. It is important that users of any test conduct an ‘in-house’ verification of test performance, using panels of defined positive and negative sera representative of the target population whenever feasible.

4. Use of serology in animals

Animal hosts can harbor infective ML as early as 18 days post infection (Despommier, 1998), in some cases before detectable antibodies are present; further, infection with low numbers of larvae can result in an extended period of seronegativity before anti-Trichinella antibody is detectable in serum (Nöckler et al., 2005). It has been reported that the correlation between seropositivity and the presence of Trichinella ML decreases at low infection rates. For these reasons, serological methods should not be used for the detection of Trichinella infection in individual food animal carcasses for the purpose of protecting human health (Gajadhar et al., 2009; Gamble et al., 2004).

4.1. ELISA for detection of Trichinella infection in domestic swine populations

4.1.1. Suitability of test

ELISA, due to its ease of use, low cost, rapidity in obtaining results, and potential for standardization and automation for large numbers of samples, is the test of choice for surveillance in domestic pigs. ELISA, using ES antigens, has been shown to have greater sensitivity than digestion of 1 g samples in animals with low (i.e. <3 larvae per gram (lpg)) worm burdens (Gamble et al., 2000; Kapel and Gamble, 2000). However, this increased sensitivity, as compared with direct testing methods, is offset by the reduced ability to detect antibodies in recently infected animals, even when infective larvae are found in the muscle. Thus, ELISA is not advised for individual carcass control. However, ELISA is an excellent tool for epidemiological studies and for monitoring Trichinella exposure.

4.1.2. Validation of ELISA

Serological detection of Trichinella infection in pigs is impacted by both technical (laboratory proficiency, quality of the antigen used in the assay) and biological factors (initial infecting dose, days post-infection). Prior to using ELISA for detection of antibodies to Trichinella, the test should be fully validated with an appropriate number of positive and negative samples from the test population (OIE, 2013). Validation should take into account that false negatives can occur during a period of prolonged seroconversion due to a low infectious dose or low larval density in muscle tissue or from collection of serum before a detectable antibody response has developed. False positives can occur from non-specific serological reactivity to components in a complex antigen preparation, or to cross-reacting antibodies generated from a different helminth infection. This is particularly evident in free-ranging and backyard pigs which are also at higher risk for Trichinella sp. infection. Therefore, positive results should be confirmed by WB (Dupouy-Camet and Bruschi, 2007).

4.1.3. Antigen preparation

The quality of ES antigens used in the ELISA is of primary importance, and depends upon adherence to proper methods for the cultivation of Trichinella ML and proper purification and storage of the antigen. The method for the preparation of ES antigens has been published in the OIE Manual (OIE, 2017).

4.1.4. Methodologies and controls

A general method for conducting an ELISA test in pigs is described in the OIE Manual (OIE, 2017). Standard antigens, reference sera and scientific consultation can be obtained from subject matter authorities, such as ICT members' laboratories (www.trichinellosis.org) and the OIE Reference Laboratories for Trichinellosis (www.oie.int/eng/oie/organisation/en_listeLR.htm). Reference swine sera positive for anti-Trichinella antibodies are not available on the international market; however, swine sera from experimentally infected animals have been collected and their validity and stability tested (Gómez-Morales et al., 2015). These reference sera are available upon request at the European Union Reference Laboratory for Parasites (http://www.iss.it/crlp/).

4.1.5. Interpretation of results

The level of infection of pigs with Trichinella larvae (worm burden) is directly correlated with the time required for anti-Trichinella antibodies to appear in the blood. For low-grade infections (< 1 lpg), antibodies may not be detected by ELISA for 4–7 weeks or longer following exposure (Gamble, 1996, Gamble, 1998; Gamble et al., 1983), while antibodies might be detected after 2.5 to 3 weeks in pigs with higher numbers of ML. There is no correlation between the ultimate worm burden (larvae per gram of tissue) and the resulting optical density (OD) in the ELISA in serologically positive pigs once seroconversion has taken place. Therefore, artificial digestion of tissue is an important adjunct to ELISA to determine the public health risk associated with infected animals. Trichinella antibodies may persist in pigs for extended periods. It can be assumed that in slaughter pigs, which have a live weight of 90 to 100 kg at an age of 25 to 30 weeks, it is unlikely that a false-negative finding would result from declining antibody titer.

4.2. Indirect detection of Trichinella infection in other animals, including wildlife

Several ELISAs to monitor wildlife populations such as wild boar have been described; however, the c-ELISA that enables the detection of specific antibodies irrespective of their isotype or host origin, has the most potential value as a multispecies surveillance tool (Gamble and Graham, 1984; Gnjatovic et al., 2017). The variability of collection methods for wildlife and game meat serum samples often creates problems in conducting serological tests. Samples are frequently contaminated by bacteria or fungi, or they may be hemolysed; these problems can cause false positive results (OIE, 2013; Harlow and Lane, 1988). Besides the compromised quality of the samples, the validation of serological assays is also hampered by a lack of reliable reference sera. Any serological test used to detect Trichinella infection in animal species other than pigs should likewise be fully validated. As for domestic pigs, a confirmatory test, such as WB, for positive sera should be performed. Examples of ELISA performance in animal species other than domestic swine are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Performance of ELISA with ES antigens in animal species other than domestic swine.

Animal species Notes References
Horse (Equus caballus) Antibody responses persisted in a dose-dependent manner from 14 to 20 weeks post-infection (p.i) and then declined to undetectable levels, whereas, viable ML persisted in horse muscle for longer period of time Hill et al., 2007;
Nöckler et al., 2000;
Pozio et al., 2002
Dog (Canis lupus familiaris) ELISA followed by a confirmatory Western blot using ES antigens have been developed and validated; no commercial kit is available Gómez-Morales et al., 2016
Wild boar (Sus scrofa) Results similar to those of domestic pigs but with a higher number of false positives Cuttell et al., 2014;
Gómez-Morales et al., 2014;
Kärssin et al., 2016
Bear (Ursus spp.) Lack of reference sera and validation studies Asbakk et al., 2010;
Mortenson et al., 2014;
Rah et al., 2005
Fox (Vulpes spp.) Lack of reference sera and validation studies Davidson et al., 2009;
Nöckler and Voigt, 1998
Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) Antibodies were not detectable after six weeks p.i. although live larvae were present in the muscles up to six months p.i. Ludovisi et al., 2013
Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Specific antibody levels increased during the 10 week experimental period. Very reduced number of animals. Kapel et al., 2003
Open in a new tab

4.2.1. Interpretation of results

It is imperative to determine the positive/negative cut-off value and associated sensitivity and specificity on the basis of a panel of serum samples (at least 100–200 sera representative of the animal population for which the test will be used). Alternative methods such as a binary mixed model analysis, which was shown effective for other animal parasitic diseases, are not feasible at a low expected prevalence of the infection. The animal genotype, feeding habits, exposure to other pathogens, and environmental characteristics can influence the background of a serological test (OIE, 2013). All these factors are particularly relevant in wildlife and other animal species that are not raised under controlled conditions.

5. Use of serological methods in humans

Since there are no pathognomonic signs or symptoms for trichinellosis, clinical diagnosis in individuals is often difficult. Consequently, diagnosis is based on three main criteria: anamnesis based on epidemiological data, clinical evaluation, and laboratory tests including serology and/or the detection of Trichinella larvae in a muscle biopsy (Dupouy-Camet and Bruschi, 2007). Because the collection of a muscle biopsy is invasive, painful, and does not always give the expected result even when the suspicion of trichinellosis is correct, serological findings, normally entailing the detection of specific IgG in serum, have practical diagnostic value.

There are 3 objectives in the immunodiagnosis of human trichinellosis: (a) recognizing the acute infection to allow early anthelminthic treatment; (b) making a retrospective diagnosis; and (c) contributing information to the epidemiology of the infection (Ljungström, 1983).

5.1. Suitability of test

Many serological tests are available for human diagnosis (Dupouy-Camet and Bruschi, 2007). ICT recommends the use of an ELISA for screening and WB to confirm ELISA-positive sera. All tests should use ES antigens. Serological diagnosis can be complicated by cross-reactivity, due to the presence of shared antigens of Trichinella spp. in other parasites and pathogens (Gómez-Morales et al., 2008; Intapan et al., 2006).

In most trichinellosis cases, increased parasite-specific IgG, IgA and IgM serum levels accompany the infection; however, increases in parasite-specific IgE antibody and total IgE are not consistent, and consequently the diagnostic value of IgE antibodies without considering other laboratory findings is limited (Bruschi and Dupouy-Camet, 2014).

Generally, seroconversion occurs between the third and fifth weeks of infection and antibody levels do not correlate with the severity or other aspects of the clinical course. IgG specific antibodies are detectable from 12 to 60 days post infection and may persist for >30 years after infection (Bruschi and Gómez-Morales, 2014; Bruschi et al., 2005). The identification of IgG subclasses, although interesting for research purposes, does not contribute to the diagnosis (Pinelli et al., 2004, Pinelli et al., 2007). For interpreting human serology in the course of Trichinella infection, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO)/World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines for the surveillance, management, prevention and control of trichinellosis should be consulted (Dupouy-Camet and Bruschi, 2007).

An example of a detailed protocol for performing an ELISA with human sera is shown in Appendix A.

6. Conclusion

These recommendations are based on current scientific information including unpublished data from laboratories with relevant expertise in this field. They represent the official position of the ICT regarding acceptable methods for the use and interpretation of serology testing for Trichinella infection in animals and humans. These recommendations are subject to change as new scientific information becomes available.

The following is the supplementary data related to this article.

Appendix A

Procedure for the detection of anti-Trichinella antibodies in human serum by indirect ELISA

mmc1.doc (62KB, doc)

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health: Azioni Centrali, Programma CCM 2016 “Analisi epidemiologica di tre malattie infettive orfane: Trichinella, Listeria, Echinococcus”.

References

  1. Appleton J.A., Bell R.G., Homan W., van Knapen F. Consensus on Trichinella spiralis antigens and antibodies. Parasitol. Today. 1991;7:190–192. [Google Scholar]
  2. Asbakk K., Aars J., Derocher A.E., Wiig O., Oksanen A., Born E.W. Serosurvey for Trichinella in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Svalbard and the Barents Sea. Vet. Parasitol. 2010;172:256–263. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.05.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruschi F., Dupouy-Camet J. Trichinellosis. In: Bruschi F., editor. The Helminth Infections and their Impact on Global Public Health. Springer; Wien: 2014. pp. 229–272. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruschi F., Gómez-Morales M.A. The translational immunology of Trichinellosis: From rodents to humans. In: Jirillo E., Magrone T., Miragliotta G., editors. Immune Response to Parasitic Infections. Immunity to Helminthes and Novel Therapeutic Approaches. Bentham Publ. Group; Abu Dhabi: 2014. pp. 125–161. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruschi F., Locci M.T., Cabaj W., Moskwa B., Castagna B., Kociecka W. Persistence of reactivity against the 45 kDa glycoprotein in late trichinellosis patients. Vet. Parasitol. 2005;132:115–118. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuttell L., Gómez-Morales M.A., Cookson B., Adams P.J., Reid S.A., Vanderlinde P.B. Evaluation of ELISA coupled with Western blot as a surveillance tool for Trichinella infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa) Vet. Parasitol. 2014;199:179–190. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davidson R.K., Ørpetveit I., Møller L., Kapel C.M. Serological detection of anti-Trichinella antibodies in wild foxes and experimentally infected farmed foxes in Norway. Vet. Parasitol. 2009;163:93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Despommier D.D. How does Trichinella spiralis make itself at home? Parasitol. Today. 1998;14:318–323. doi: 10.1016/s0169-4758(98)01287-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dupouy-Camet J., Bruschi F. Management and diagnosis of human trichinellosis. In: Dupouy-Camet J., Murrell K.D., editors. FAO/WHO/OIE Guidelines for the Surveillance, Management, Prevention and Control of Trichinellosis. World Organization for Animal Health Press; Paris: 2007. pp. 37–69. [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission Commission implementing regulation 2015/1375 of 10 August 2015 laying down specific rules on official controls for Trichinella in meat. Off. J. Eur. Comm. Legis. 2015;212:7–34. [Google Scholar]
  11. Frey C.F., Buholzer P., Beck R., Marinculic A., Raeber A.J., Gottstein B. Evaluation of a new commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of porcine antibodies against Trichinella spp. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2009;21:692–697. doi: 10.1177/104063870902100516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Frey C.F., Schuppers M.E., Nöckler K., Marinculic A., Pozio E., Kihm U. Validation of a Western blot for the detection of anti-Trichinella spp antibodies in domestic pigs. Parasitol. Res. 2009;104:1269–1277. doi: 10.1007/s00436-008-1321-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fu B.Q., Li W.H., Gai W.Y., Yao J.X., Qu Z.G., Xie Z.Z. Detection of anti-Trichinella antibodies in serum of experimentally-infected swine by immunochromatographic strip. Vet. Parasitol. 2013;194:125–127. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.01.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gajadhar A.A., Pozio E., Gamble H.R., Nöckler K., Maddox-Hyttel C., Forbes L.D. Trichinella diagnostics and control: mandatory and best practices for ensuring food safety. Vet. Parasitol. 2009;159:197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.10.063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gamble H.R. Detection of trichinellosis in pigs by artificial digestion and enzyme immunoassay. J. Food. Prot. 1996;59:295–298. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-59.3.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gamble H.R. Sensitivity of artificial digestion and enzyme immunoassay methods of inspection for trichinae in pigs. J. Food Prot. 1998;61:339–343. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-61.3.339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gamble H.R., Graham C.E. Comparison of monoclonal antibody-based competitive and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the diagnosis of swine trichinosis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 1984;6:379–389. doi: 10.1016/0165-2427(84)90062-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gamble H.R., Anderson W.R., Graham C.E., Murrell K.D. Diagnosis of swine trichinosis by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using an excretory-secretory antigen. Vet. Parasitol. 1983;13:349–361. doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(83)90051-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gamble H.R., Bessonov A.S., Cuperlovic K., Gajadhar A., van Knapen F., Noeckler K. International commission on Trichinellosis: recommendations on methods for the control of Trichinella in domestic and wild animals intended for human consumption. Vet. Parasitol. 2000;93:393–408. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00354-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gamble H.R., Pozio E., Bruschi F., Noeckler K., Kapel C.M., Gajadhar A. International commission on Trichinellosis: recommendations on the use of serological tests for the detection of Trichinella infection in animals and man. Parasite. 2004;11:3–13. doi: 10.1051/parasite/20041113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gnjatovic M., Gruden-Movsesijan A., Miladinovic-Tasic N., Ilic N., Vasilev S., Cvetkovic J., Sofronic-Milosavljevic L. A competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for rapid detection of antibodies against Trichinella spiralis and T. britovi - one test for humans and swine. J. Helminthol. 2017;23:1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X17001092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gómez-Morales M.A., Ludovisi A., Amati M., Cherchi S., Pezzotti P., Pozio E. Validation of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of human trichinellosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15:1723–1729. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00257-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez-Morales M.A., Ludovisi A., Pezzotti P., Amati M., Cherchi S., Lalle M. International ring trial to detect anti-Trichinella IgG by ELISA on pig sera. Vet. Parasitol. 2009;166:241–248. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gómez-Morales M.A., Ludovisi A., Amati M., Blaga R., Zivojinovic M., Ribicich M. A distinctive Western blot pattern to recognize Trichinella infections in humans and pigs. Int. J. Parasitol. 2012;42:1017–1023. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2012.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gómez-Morales M.A., Ludovisi A., Amati M., Bandino E., Capelli G., Corrias F. Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa) Parasit. Vectors. 2014;7:171. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gómez-Morales M.A., Ludovisi A., Amati M., Pozio E. Candidates for reference swine serum with anti-Trichinella antibodies. Vet. Parasitol. 2015;208:218–224. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gómez-Morales M.A., Selmi M., Ludovisi A., Amati M., Fiorentino E., Breviglieri L. Hunting dogs as sentinel animals for monitoring infections with Trichinella spp. in wildlife. Parasit. Vectors. 2016;9:154. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1437-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Harlow E., Lane D. Antibodies: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; 1988. Storing and purifying antibodies. (Ed.) [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill D.E., Forbes L., Kramer M., Gajadhar A., Gamble H.R. Larval viability and serological response in horses with long-term Trichinella spiralis infection. Vet. Parasitol. 2007;146:107–116. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Intapan P.M., Maleewong W., Sukeepaisarnjaroen W., Morakote N. Potential use of Trichinella spiralis antigen for serodiagnosis of human capillariasis philippinensis by immunoblot analysis. Parasitol. Res. 2006;98:227–231. doi: 10.1007/s00436-005-0070-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. International Organization for Standardization . 2015. ISO 18743: Microbiology of the Food Chain - Detection of Trichinella Larvae in Meat by Artificial Digestion Method. Geneva, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kapel C.M., Gamble H.R. Infectivity, persistence, and antibody response to domestic and sylvatic Trichinella spp. in experimentally infected pigs. Int. J. Parasitol. 2000;30:215–221. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(99)00202-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kapel C.M.O., Webster P., Lind P., Pozio E., Henriksen S.A., Murrell K.D. Trichinella spiralis, Trichinella britovi, and Trichinella nativa: infectivity, larval distribution in muscle, and antibody response after experimental infection of pigs. Parasitol. Res. 1998;84:264–271. doi: 10.1007/s004360050393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kapel C.M.O., Measures L., Møllera L.N., Forbes L., Gajadhar A. Experimental Trichinella infection in seals. Int. J. Parasitol. 2003;33:1463–1470. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00202-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kärssin A., Velström K., Gómez-Morales M.A., Saar T., Jokelainen P., Lassen B. Cross-sectional study of anti-Trichinella antibody prevalence in domestic pigs and hunted wild boars in Estonia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2016;16:604–610. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2016.1943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Korhonen P.K., Pozio E., La Rosa G., Chang B.C., Koehler A.V., Hoberg E.P., Boag P.R., Tan P., Jex A.R., Hofmann A., Sternberg P.W., Young N.D., Gasser R.B. Phylogenomic and biogeographic reconstruction of the Trichinella complex. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:10513. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ljungström I. Immunodiagnosis in man. In: Campbell W.C., editor. Trichinella and Trichinosis. Plenum Press; New York: 1983. pp. 403–424. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ludovisi A., La Grange L.J., Gómez-Morales M.A., Pozio E. Development of an ELISA to detect the humoral immune response to Trichinella zimbabwensis in Nile crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus) Vet. Parasitol. 2013;194:189–192. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.01.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Møller L.N., Petersen E., Gamble H.R., Kapel C.M. Comparison of two antigens for demonstration of Trichinella spp. antibodies in blood and muscle fluid of foxes, pigs and wild boars. Vet. Parasitol. 2005;132:81–84. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mortenson J.A., Kent M.L., Fowler D.R., Chomel B.B., Immell D.A. Trichinella surveillance in black bears (Ursus americanus) from Oregon. USA. J. Wildl. Dis. 2014;50:133–135. doi: 10.7589/2012-03-058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nöckler K., Kapel C.M.O. Detection and surveillance for Trichinella: meat inspection and hygiene, and legislation. In: Dupouy-Camet J., Murrell K.D., editors. FAO/WHO/OIE Guidelines for the Surveillance, Management, Prevention and Control of Trichinellosis. World Organization for Animal Health Press; Paris: 2007. pp. 69–97. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nöckler K., Voigt W.P. Experimental Trichinella spiralis infection in the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes fulva) In: Ortega-Pierres G., Gamble H.R., van Knapen F., Wakelin D., editors. Trichinellosis, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Trichinellosis. German Press; Nonoalco Tlateloco, Mexico: 1998. pp. 319–323. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nöckler K., Pozio E., Voigt W.P., Heidrich J. Detection of Trichinella infection in food animals. Vet. Parasitol. 2000;93:335–350. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00350-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nöckler K., Hamidi A., Fries R., Heidrich J., Beck R., Marinculic A. Influence of methods for Trichinella detection in pigs from endemic and non-endemic European region. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis Vet. Public Health. 2004;51:297–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0450.2004.00770.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nöckler K., Serrano F.J., Boireau P., Kapel C.M., Pozio E. Experimental studies in pigs on Trichinella detection in different diagnostic matrices. Vet. Parasitol. 2005;132:85–89. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nöckler K., Reckinger S., Broglia A., Mayer-Scholl A., Bahn P. Evaluation of a western blot and ELISA for the detection of anti-Trichinella-IgG in pig sera. Vet. Parasitol. 2009;163:341–347. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.04.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. OIE/World Organisation for Animal Health . Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. World Organization for Animal Health; 2013. Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases, Chapter 1.1.6.www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00013.htm [Google Scholar]
  48. OIE/World Organisation for Animal Health . Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. World Organization for Animal Health; 2017. Trichinellosis (infection with Trichinella spp.), Chapter 2.1.20.www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00013.htm [Google Scholar]
  49. Ortega-Pierres M.G., Yepez-Mulia L., Homan W., Gamble H.R., Lim P.L., Takahashi Y. Workshop on a detailed characterization of Trichinella spiralis antigens: a platform for future studies on antigens and antibodies to this parasite. Parasite Immunol. 1996;18:273–284. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3024.1996.d01-103.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Owen I.L., Gómez-Morales M.A., Pezzotti P., Pozio E. Trichinella infection in a hunting population of Papua New Guinea suggests an ancient relationship between Trichinella and human beings. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2005;99:618–624. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2005.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pinelli E., Mommers M., Homan W., van Maanen T., Kortbeek L.M. Imported human trichinellosis: sequential IgG4 antibody response to Trichinella spiralis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2004;23:57–60. doi: 10.1007/s10096-003-1039-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pinelli E., Mommers M., Kortbeek L.M., Castagna B., Piergili-Fioretti D., Bruschi F. Specific IgG4 response directed against the 45-kDa glycoprotein in trichinellosis: a re-evaluation of patients 15 years after infection. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2007;26:641–645. doi: 10.1007/s10096-007-0349-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pozio E., Sofronic-Milosavljevic L., Gómez-Morales M.A., Boireau P., Nöckler K. Evaluation of ELISA and Western Blot Analysis using three antigens to detect anti-Trichinella IgG in horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2002;108:163–178. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(02)00185-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rah H., Chomel B.B., Follmann E.H., Kasten R.W., Hew C.H., Farver T.B. Serosurvey of selected zoonotic agents in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Vet. Rec. 2005;156:7–13. doi: 10.1136/vr.156.1.7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sofronic-Milosavljevic Lj, Ilic N., Djordjevic M., Savic M., Gruden-Movsesijan A., Cuperlovic K. Anti-Trichinella antibodies detected in chronically infected horses by IFA and Western blot, but not by ELISA. Vet. Parasitol. 2005;132:107–111. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Szell Z., Marucci G., Ludovisi A. Spatial distribution of T. britovi, T. spiralis and T. pseudospiralis in domestic pigs and wild boars (Sus scrofa) in Hungary. Vet. Parasitol. 2012;183:393–396. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.07.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Vu Thi N., Dorny P., La Rosa G., Long T.T., Nguyen Van C., Pozio E. High prevalence of anti-Trichinella IgG in domestic pigs of the Son La province, Vietnam. Vet. Parasitol. 2010;168:136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yera H., Andiva S., Ferret C., Limonne D., Boireau P., Dupouy-Camet J. Development and evaluation of a western blot kit for the diagnosis of human trichinellosis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 2003;10:793–796. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.10.5.793-796.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhang G., Guo J., Wang X. Immunochromatographic lateral flow strip tests. Methods Mol. Biol. 2009;504:169–183. doi: 10.1007/978-1-60327-569-9_12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix A

Procedure for the detection of anti-Trichinella antibodies in human serum by indirect ELISA

mmc1.doc (62KB, doc)

Articles from Food and Waterborne Parasitology are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES