Volume 54, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645



A commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (ProSpect® Rapid Assay), a direct immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) test for stool testing (MER), and an indirect IFA test for environmental testing (Hydrofluor™-Combo ) were evaluated for detection of low public health risk oocyst isolates, and for oocyst isolates from human and bovine feces that represent a high public health risk. There was no cross-reactivity of the EIA with ova of eight medically important helminths, three species oocysts, sporocysts, and two sp. isolates. All nine snake oocyst isolates (), two of seven lizard oocyst isolates, one turtle oocyst isolate, two avian oocyst isolates (turkey, ), one oocyst isolate from guinea pigs, one oocyst isolate from hyrax, one heifer isolate, and two -like oocyst isolates from a camel were positive by both IFA tests; six of these 19 oocyst isolates were EIA-positive. There was no difference in the sensitivity and specificity between direct and indirect IFA tests. The sensitivity of the EIA and both IFA tests to the oocysts was 100%. The EIA showed less cross-reactivity with the non- oocysts (24%) than direct or indirect IFA (76%), and was less sensitive to those isolates (20%) than both IFA tests (63%). A simulated sampling model for high and low public health risk oocysts showed that the low risk oocyst isolates may constitute up to 35% of all positive environmental samples by direct or indirect IFA determination, and up to 12% of all EIA positive samples. This study indicates a superiority of direct and indirect IFA and EIA for screening of human-or-bovine-origin fecal specimens, whereas testing of environmental samples may lead to misidentification of medically important isolates. The results demonstrated that the EIA kit can more accurately identify environmental samples containing oocysts pathogenic for humans than both IFA tests. The specificity of commercially available diagnostic kits to should be critically examined for cross-species identification before they are recommended or adopted for use in testing environmental samples.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error