Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:54:43.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of a dot-ELISA for the detection and differentiation of trypanosome species in infected tsetse flies (Glossina spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2010

K. M. Bosompem ,
R. A. Masake ,
R. K. G. Assoku ,
E. A. Opiyo  and
V. M. Nantulya
K. M. Bosompem
Affiliation:
International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases, Nairobi, Kenya
R. A. Masake
Affiliation:
International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases, Nairobi, Kenya
R. K. G. Assoku
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon
E. A. Opiyo
Affiliation:
Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute
V. M. Nantulya
Affiliation:
Brentec Diagnostics, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A rapid, visually read, dot-ELISA developed for the detection and differentiation of trypanosome species in tsetse flies (Glossina spp.), was field tested alongside the standard fly dissection method on a ranch in south eastern Kenya. Of 104 G. pallidipes dissected, 2 were found to be infected with trypanosomes in their midguts. By the dissection method the infecting trypanosome species could not be identified, as both flies had no salivary gland infections. However, using the dot-ELISA, the 2 flies were shown to be infected with Trypanosoma congolense in their midguts. The midguts of an additional 6 (5·8%) of the 104 G. pallidipes tested positive for T. congolense in the dot-ELISA, even though no trypanosomes were seen on dissection. The infection rate for this fly species as determined using the dot-ELISA, therefore, was 7·7% for T. congolense in midgut infections compared to 1·9% identified by fly dissection. The salivary glands and mouthparts of the 6 additional tsetse flies identified by dot-ELISA were all negative as determined by the 2 techniques. None of 390 G. longipennis flies dissected and examined for trypanosomes in the midgut, salivary glands and mouthparts was shown, by this method, to be infected. Using the dot-ELISA, however, 17 (4·4%) of the flies tested positive for T. congolense in the midgut, whilst the salivary glands and mouthparts of the same flies were negative. Thus, the dot-ELISA appears to be more sensitive than the fly dissection method under field conditions. Moreover, the dot-ELISA can be performed in the field without electricity. It is simple to perform, and was not affected by high ambient temperatures (22–32°C), or by contamination of reactants with dust.

Keywords

dot-ELISAevaluationmonoclonal antibodiesdetectionAfrican trypanosomesGlossina
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , February 1996 , pp. 205 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bosompem, K. M. (1993). Development of monoclonal antibody-based assays for the detection and differentiation of trypanosome species in the tsetse fly (Glossina species). Ph. D. thesis, Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon.Google Scholar
Bosompen, K. M., Assoku, R. K. G. & Nantulya, V. M. (1995a). Differentiation between culture derived insect stages of T. brucei, T. Vivax, T. Congolense and T. simiae using a monoclonal antibody-based dot-ELISA. Parasitology 112, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosompem, K. M., Moloo, S. K., Assoku, R. K. G. & Nantulya, V. M. (1995b). Detection and differentiation between trypanosome species in experimentally-infected tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) using dot-ELISA. Acta Tropica (in the Press).Google Scholar
Kukla, B. A., Majiwa, P. A. O., Young, J. R., Moloo, S. K. & Ole-Moiyoi, O. K. (1987). Use of species-specific DNA probes for detection and identification of trypanosome infection in tsetse flies. Parasitology 95, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, L. & Johnson, W. B. (1924). The trypanosome infections of tsetse flies in Northern Nigeria and a new method of estimation. Bulletin of Entomological Research 14, 265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, H. W. (ed.) (1970). The African Trypanosomiases. George Allen and Unwin, London: pp. 950.Google Scholar
Opiyo, E. A., Dolan, R. B., Njogu, A. R., Sayer, P. D. & Mgutu, S. P. (1987). Tsetse control on Galana Ranch. International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research and Control, Publication No. 114, Lome, Togo, pp. 434–7.Google Scholar
Opiyo, E. A., Njogu, A. R. & Omuse, J. K. (1990). Use of impregnated targets for control of Glossina pallidipes in Kenya. Insect Science and its Applications 11, 417–25.Google Scholar
Otieno, L. H. (1983). Inadequacy of the dissection method of estimating trypanosome infection rates. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 77, 329–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, R. A. & Bell, L. H. (1971). Transmission of Trypanosoma brucei by colonized Glossina austeni and Glossina morsitans. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 65, 236–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. J., Gatula, G. M., Njogu, A. R., Mgutu, S. P. & Alushula, H. (1986). A simple epidemiological method for animal trypanosomiasis to provide relevant data for effective financial decision-making. Veterinary Parasitology 20, 261–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed