Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis
Introduction: <i>Coxiella burnetii</i> (<i>C. burnetii</i>)-infected livestock and wildlife have been epidemiologically linked to human Q fever outbreaks. Despite this growing zoonotic threat, knowledge of coxiellosis in wild animals remains limited, and studies to understand their epidemiologic rol...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145331 |
| _version_ | 1855539162688520192 |
|---|---|
| author | Kamau, M.W. Witte, C. Goosen, W. Mutinda, M. Villinger, J. Getange, D. Khogali, R. Fricken, M.E. von Fèvre, Eric M. Zimmerman, D. Linton, Y.-M. Miller, M. |
| author_browse | Fricken, M.E. von Fèvre, Eric M. Getange, D. Goosen, W. Kamau, M.W. Khogali, R. Linton, Y.-M. Miller, M. Mutinda, M. Villinger, J. Witte, C. Zimmerman, D. |
| author_facet | Kamau, M.W. Witte, C. Goosen, W. Mutinda, M. Villinger, J. Getange, D. Khogali, R. Fricken, M.E. von Fèvre, Eric M. Zimmerman, D. Linton, Y.-M. Miller, M. |
| author_sort | Kamau, M.W. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Introduction: <i>Coxiella burnetii</i> (<i>C. burnetii</i>)-infected livestock and wildlife have been epidemiologically linked to human Q fever outbreaks. Despite this growing zoonotic threat, knowledge of coxiellosis in wild animals remains limited, and studies to understand their epidemiologic role are needed. In <i>C. burnetii</i>-endemic areas, ticks have been reported to harbor and spread <i>C. burnetii</i> and may serve as indicators of risk of infection in wild animal habitats. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare molecular techniques for detecting <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA in ticks.
Methods: In total, 169 ticks from wild animals and cattle in wildlife conservancies in northern Kenya were screened for <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA using a conventional PCR (cPCR) and two field-friendly techniques: Biomeme’s <i>C. burnetii</i> qPCR Go-strips (Biomeme) and a new <i>C. burnetii</i> PCR high-resolution melt (PCR-HRM) analysis assay. Results were evaluated, in the absence of a gold standard test, using Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA) to characterize the proportion of <i>C. burnetii</i> positive ticks and estimate sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the three tests.
Results: The final BLCA model included main effects and estimated that PCR-HRM had the highest Se (86%; 95% credible interval: 56–99%), followed by the Biomeme (Se = 57%; 95% credible interval: 34–90%), with the estimated Se of the cPCR being the lowest (24%, 95% credible interval: 10–47%). Specificity estimates for all three assays ranged from 94 to 98%. Based on the model, an estimated 16% of ticks had <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA present.
Discussion: These results reflect the endemicity of <i>C. burnetii</i> in northern Kenya and show the promise of the PCR-HRM assay for <i>C. burnetii</i> surveillance in ticks. Further studies using ticks and wild animal samples will enhance understanding of the epidemiological role of ticks in Q fever. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace145331 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publishDateRange | 2024 |
| publishDateSort | 2024 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media |
| publisherStr | Frontiers Media |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1453312025-12-08T10:29:22Z Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis Kamau, M.W. Witte, C. Goosen, W. Mutinda, M. Villinger, J. Getange, D. Khogali, R. Fricken, M.E. von Fèvre, Eric M. Zimmerman, D. Linton, Y.-M. Miller, M. diagnosis zoonoses wildlife livestock Introduction: <i>Coxiella burnetii</i> (<i>C. burnetii</i>)-infected livestock and wildlife have been epidemiologically linked to human Q fever outbreaks. Despite this growing zoonotic threat, knowledge of coxiellosis in wild animals remains limited, and studies to understand their epidemiologic role are needed. In <i>C. burnetii</i>-endemic areas, ticks have been reported to harbor and spread <i>C. burnetii</i> and may serve as indicators of risk of infection in wild animal habitats. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare molecular techniques for detecting <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA in ticks. Methods: In total, 169 ticks from wild animals and cattle in wildlife conservancies in northern Kenya were screened for <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA using a conventional PCR (cPCR) and two field-friendly techniques: Biomeme’s <i>C. burnetii</i> qPCR Go-strips (Biomeme) and a new <i>C. burnetii</i> PCR high-resolution melt (PCR-HRM) analysis assay. Results were evaluated, in the absence of a gold standard test, using Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA) to characterize the proportion of <i>C. burnetii</i> positive ticks and estimate sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the three tests. Results: The final BLCA model included main effects and estimated that PCR-HRM had the highest Se (86%; 95% credible interval: 56–99%), followed by the Biomeme (Se = 57%; 95% credible interval: 34–90%), with the estimated Se of the cPCR being the lowest (24%, 95% credible interval: 10–47%). Specificity estimates for all three assays ranged from 94 to 98%. Based on the model, an estimated 16% of ticks had <i>C. burnetii</i> DNA present. Discussion: These results reflect the endemicity of <i>C. burnetii</i> in northern Kenya and show the promise of the PCR-HRM assay for <i>C. burnetii</i> surveillance in ticks. Further studies using ticks and wild animal samples will enhance understanding of the epidemiological role of ticks in Q fever. 2024-06-19 2024-06-19T08:38:00Z 2024-06-19T08:38:00Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145331 en Open Access Frontiers Media Kamau, M.W., Witte, C., Goosen, W., Mutinda, M., Villinger, J., Getange, D., Khogali, R., Fricken, M.E. von, Fèvre, E.M., Zimmerman, D., Linton, Y.-M. and Miller, M. 2024. Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect <i>Coxiella burnetii</i> DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 11: 1396714. |
| spellingShingle | diagnosis zoonoses wildlife livestock Kamau, M.W. Witte, C. Goosen, W. Mutinda, M. Villinger, J. Getange, D. Khogali, R. Fricken, M.E. von Fèvre, Eric M. Zimmerman, D. Linton, Y.-M. Miller, M. Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title | Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect Coxiella burnetii DNA in ticks using Bayesian latent class analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of test performance of a conventional pcr and two field friendly tests to detect coxiella burnetii dna in ticks using bayesian latent class analysis |
| topic | diagnosis zoonoses wildlife livestock |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145331 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kamaumw comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT wittec comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT goosenw comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT mutindam comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT villingerj comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT getanged comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT khogalir comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT frickenmevon comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT fevreericm comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT zimmermand comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT lintonym comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis AT millerm comparisonoftestperformanceofaconventionalpcrandtwofieldfriendlyteststodetectcoxiellaburnetiidnainticksusingbayesianlatentclassanalysis |