1. Introduction
Taenia solium taeniasis/cysticercosis is a zoonotic disease complex endemic in many low- and middle-income countries where informal pig husbandry and inadequate sanitation coexist [1,2]. The lifecycle of T. solium includes humans as definitive hosts of the adult tapeworm (taeniasis) and pigs (as well as humans) as intermediate hosts of the tissue larval phase or cysticercus [3,4]. Neurocysticercosis (NCC), the larval cyst infection of the central nervous system (CNS) is a major cause of epilepsy and other neurological morbidity in humans worldwide and accounts for approximately 30% of epilepsy cases in endemic areas [5,6,7]. On the other hand, porcine cysticercosis negatively impacts the economy of small farmers due to the confiscation of infected pork, although in endemic areas, small farmers are often unaware of the infection of their pigs and communities do not participate in cysticercosis control [8,9,10].
The diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis is crucial for T. solium control strategies [11], as pigs with viable cysts are potential reservoirs of future tapeworms for humans. Given the relatively short lifespan of rural pigs, their infection rates often reflect the level of environmental contamination with T. solium eggs, and changes in disease prevalence in pigs may provide information in monitoring the success of control programs [12,13]. Due to the strong geographic correlation between foci of cysticercotic pigs and the presence of human tapeworm carriers [14], small-radius clusters around cysticercotic pigs may also serve as an effective tool to identify individuals at high risk of taeniasis for timely diagnosis and treatment [15]. However, a critical limitation is the lack of an affordable diagnostic test with adequate sensitivity and specificity to detect viable cysts in pigs in low-resource settings [16]. Postmortem carcass dissection is the gold standard, but it is not feasible as a routine surveillance approach, in addition to being expensive and time-consuming in field studies [17]. The tongue exam, although highly specific, is only moderately sensitive to severe infections and much less sensitive to mild infections, which tend to be substantially more frequent [18]. Serological tests, targeting either antigen or antibody detection, have been widely used in epidemiological studies of porcine cysticercosis. However, major drawbacks include the poor ability of antibody detection tests to discriminate viable from non-viable infections [19], as well as the low specificity of antigen detection tests due to cross reactivity with Taenia hydatigena [20,21,22].
The enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) assay detects antibody bands against seven T. solium glycoprotein antigens (GP50, GP42-39, GP24, GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13) [23] and is the reference serological test for porcine cysticercosis due to its high initially reported levels of sensitivity and specificity (99% and 100%, respectively) [24]. The presence of ≥1 EITB antibody bands has been classically interpreted as an indicator of exposure rather than viable infection [19,25]. The high prevalence of EITB antibody bands in pigs from T. solium-endemic areas may arise from pigs with viable infections but may also represent transient responses in pigs exposed but not developing cysts, pigs with degenerated or past infections [26], pigs with maternal antibodies transferred by passive immunity [27], and pigs infected with T. hydatigena metacestodes (due to cross reactivity of the GP50 band) [28]. The seven EITB antibody bands reflect responses against three distinct antigen families with defined structures and functions. The GP50 antigen family comprises transmembrane proteins that migrate at the 50 kDa position [29]. The T24/42 antigen family comprises a set of proteins called tetraspanins (proteins involved in cell adhesion and proliferation processes) that migrate at 42–39 kDa and 24 kDa positions [30]. The 8-kDa antigen family comprises small excretory/secretory proteins that migrate at 21, 18, 14, and 13 kDa positions and are eventually also found at the 24 kDa position on EITB [31]. Categorizing positive or negative EITB results using optimal band-number cutoffs (≥3 bands) only moderately improves the ability to predict viable infections [32]. In addition, EITB seroconversion in pigs can occur with diverse patterns of positive bands, which does not occur at random and can provide additional information about the likelihood of viable infection [33].
Unlike humans, the immune response profiles observed in the EITB banding patterns of pigs are influenced by several factors, such as their short lifespan, intensity of exposure, concomitant larval infections, and maternal immunity [34]. In experimentally infected pigs, EITB results correlate with the stage of cyst viability (positive in pigs with viable cysts and negative in pigs without cysts or only with degenerated or caseous cysts) [35], whereas in naturally infected pigs, a proportional trend between the number of EITB bands and cyst burden was found [36]. A previous study also found a correlation between EITB banding patterns and brain imaging findings in NCC patients, and some patterns were found to be highly predictive of viable infections [37]. However, this association has not been properly assessed in naturally infected pigs yet. This paper reports the use of EITB banding patterns for discrimination of viable cysts in naturally infected pigs.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Data Sources
This study is a cross-sectional assessment of the relationship between EITB banding patterns and viable cyst infection in naturally infected pigs involving the analysis of data (necropsy outcomes and EITB results) from three studies previously conducted in T. solium cysticercosis-endemic rural areas. The first study (year 2006) was a cysticercosis prevalence assessment in 326 pigs of ≥1 months of age from six rural communities in Tumbes, Peru [14]. The second study (year 2012) involved a cohort of pigs that was part of a vaccination trial against porcine cysticercosis in Piura, northern Peru, including only unvaccinated control pigs ≥ 4 months (n = 104) who were raised under field conditions [38]. The third study (years 2008–2012) included 83 adult pigs (≥12 months old) purchased from peasants in rural villages of Huancayo in the highlands of Peru (unpublished data, CWGP), considered a highly endemic area for human and porcine cysticercosis [39]. Pigs from Huancayo were consecutively purchased among animals found to be positive upon tongue examination, whereas pigs from Tumbes and Piura were obtained from studies in community settings [14,38].
Pig necropsies were conducted using the procedures extensively applied in previous studies by our group [32,36]. We defined the following infection outcomes separately: (1) presence of any cysts (viable or degenerated), (2) presence of viable cysts, and (3) presence of degenerated cysts. We used these criteria, since pigs with degenerated cysts (with or without viable cysts) may correspond with pigs with long-lived infections. We also obtained the proportion of pigs with viable cysts and degenerated cysts among pigs positive for any cysts. Parasite loads with viable and degenerated cysts were also recorded per pig and included as numerical variables. An EITB assay was performed as previously described by Tsang et al. [23] and adapted by Gonzalez et al. [24]. Banding pattern readings were masked to the infection status of pigs. EITB results are reported as the presence or absence (1 and 0 values) of each of the seven EITB bands. These seven values, together, represent “EITB banding pattern” variable, indicating the combination of the positive bands. The pigs’ sex and age (months) were also registered, and age was categorized as ≤8 and >8 months, as previously described [14,39].
2.2. Statistical Analysis
Pig characteristics (age, sex, infection outcomes, and EITB results) were described using summary statistics and compared by study site using bivariate analyses as required. The dichotomous results of each of the seven EITB bands were analyzed using latent class analysis (LCA) to group EITB banding patterns into homogenous groups (“latent classes”) as previously described [37]. We ran different models with increasing numbers of classes (2 to 6), using maximum likelihood methods to select the optimal number of classes according to a consensus between a statistical criterion (the model with the lowest Akaike and Bayesian information criteria (AIC and BIC) for model fit and parsimony, respectively) and the interpretability of classes (representative EITB banding patterns in each class). Pigs with unique EITB banding patterns (representing unusual responses) were excluded from LCA to avoid their inclusion as residuals in latent classes. Classes were described, and class prevalences ≥ 10% and conditional class membership probabilities for each band (close to 0 or 1) were also evaluated to confirm the model structure. Bivariate analyses between EITB classes and characteristics of the pig population were performed. Finally, we used logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals of viable cysticercosis in pigs according to EITB banding pattern classes and adjusted according to potential confounders (age categories, sex, and degenerated cyst infection). Bivariate models were applied for each covariate of interest. A second model was then applied, including all the covariates that were significant in bivariate analysis. Regression models used clustered-robust variances to account for the correlation of the data by study site. All the analyses were carried out in RStudio v1.2.5001 using the “PoLCA” package for latent class models. Statistical significance in the Wald test was set to 5%.
2.3. Ethics Statement
All the information described in this paper was obtained in previous studies by our group and reviewed and approved by The Institutional Ethics Committee for Animal Welfare Ethics of the School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (approval number 2004-007). All the procedures described in pigs were performed in accordance with the ethical principles outlined by the International Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
3. Results
A total of 513 pigs were included (326 (63.5%) from Tumbes, 104 (20.3%) from Piura, and 83 (16.2%) from Huancayo). The median age of the pigs was 9 months (interquartile range (IQR): 5–18 months), although pigs from Huancayo were older than pigs from Piura and Tumbes (p < 0.001). Two hundred fifty-three pigs (49.3%) were males, and they were more frequent in Piura than in Huancayo and Tumbes (p = 0.027).
Nearly two-thirds of pigs (324, 63.2%) had one or more EITB-positive band. Most pigs from Huancayo were EITB-positive (79/83 (95.2%)), compared to 187/326 pigs (57.4%) from Tumbes and 58/104 pigs (55.8%) from Piura (p < 0.001). The median number of EITB bands in pigs was 1 (IQR: 0–3 bands), with higher median values in pigs from Huancayo (median: 6 bands (IQR: 3–7 bands)) than in pigs from Tumbes and Piura (median: 1 band (IQR: 0–2 bands) and median: 1 band (IQR: 0–3 bands), respectively; p < 0.001). The most frequent band was GP50 (62.5%), followed by GP42-39 (39.8%) and GP24 (36.8%), whereas low-molecular-weight bands were less frequent (GP21 (10.9%), GP18 (11.5%), GP14 (9.0%), and GP13 (13.8%)).
A total of 130 pigs (25.4%) had either viable or degenerated cysts, 106 pigs (20.7%) had viable cysts, and 55 pigs (10.7%) had degenerated cysts. Pigs with viable cysts represented more than 80% of pigs positive for any cysts (106/130 (81.5%)). Most pigs from Huancayo had viable cysts (76/83 (91.6%)), in contrast to pigs from Piura (12/104 (11.5%)) and Tumbes (18/326 (5.5%), p < 0.001), whereas the proportion of pigs with degenerated cysts did not differ between study sites. Pigs with viable cysticercosis had a median of 137 viable cysts (IQR: 49–1000 cysts), and viable cyst burden was higher in pigs from Huancayo than in pigs from Piura and Tumbes (p < 0.001). Pigs with degenerated cysts had a median of four cysts (IQR: 1–14 cysts), and the degenerated cyst burden was higher in pigs from Piura than in pigs from Huancayo and Tumbes (p < 0.001, Table 1).
Thirteen EITB banding patterns were identified across all studied pigs. One pig had an unusual EITB banding pattern, probably representing a validity issue; therefore, this pig was excluded from LCA. LCA estimations resulted in a four-class model as the optimal model to group EITB banding patterns, with the lowest AIC and BIC compared to models with different numbers of classes (Supplementary Table S1). Each of the four classes presents a distinctive, unique distribution of EITB banding patterns (characteristic of antibody responses against T. solium antigen families) not observed in the other class models. Class 1 (n = 308 (60.2%), responses with zero or one positive band) was the most common pattern and included EITB-negative pigs and those positive only for the GP50 band (GP50 antigen family). Class 2 (n = 127 (24.8%), responses with two to three bands) was the second most frequent and included pigs positive for bands GP50 (GP50 antigen family), GP42-39 and GP24 (T24/42 antigen family), but negative for 8-kDa antigens (GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13). Class 3 (n = 22 (4.3%), responses with four to five bands) included pigs positive for bands GP50, GP42-39, and GP24, as well as 8-kDa bands GP13, GP14, and GP18, but negative for GP21. Class 4 (n = 55 (10.7%), responses with five to seven bands) included pigs positive for bands GP50, GP42-39, and GP24, as well as 8-kDa bands GP21 and GP18 in combination (Table 2). Conditional class membership probabilities were very high (≥87%) for bands GP50, GP42-39, and GP24 in classes 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and high (≥78%) for low-molecular-weight bands GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13 in class 4 (Supplementary Table S2).
The distribution of EITB banding pattern classes statistically differed by study site, with responses of classes 1 and 2 being more frequent in pigs from Tumbes and Piura and responses of classes 3 and 4 more frequent in pigs from Huancayo (p < 0.001, Table 3). Older pigs were also found in classes 3 and 4 (p < 0.001, Table 3). The presence of viable cysts in pigs statistically differed between EITB classes (p < 0.001), as most pigs in class 3 had viable cysts (16/22 (72.7%)), as did nearly all pigs in class 4 (53/55 (96.4%)) compared to class 2 (35/127 (27.6%)), whereas only two pigs in class 1 had viable cysts (Table 3). Infections with any cysts (viable or degenerated cysts) were also more frequent in classes 3 and 4 (17/22 (77.3%) and 54/55 (98.2%), respectively) than in classes 1 and 2 (15/308 (4.9%) and 44/127 (34.7%), respectively; p < 0.001). Degenerated cysts were also more frequent in pigs of classes 3 (8/22 (36.4%)) and 4 (15/55 (27.3%)) and less frequent in classes 2 (19/127 (15.0%)) and 1 (13/308 (4.2%), p < 0.001). Pigs with viable cysts accounted for most pigs with any cysts in classes 2, 3, and 4 (79.6%, 94.1%, and 98.2%, respectively; p < 0.001), whereas pigs with degenerated cysts were more frequent among pigs with any cysts in class 1 (86.7%, p < 0.001). Viable cyst burden per pig was also higher in classes 3 and 4 and lower in classes 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). Degenerated cyst burden was borderline statistically different between EITB classes (Table 3).
The relationship between viable cyst infection in pigs and EITB classes remained strong in the multivariate regression analysis after adjustment by age categories and the presence of degenerated cysts (Table 4). There was approximately fivefold increased odds of having viable cysts in pigs with class 3 responses (OR = 5.63 (95% CI: 1.20 to 26.41), p = 0.028), and much higher odds in pigs with class 4 responses (OR = 47.99 (95% CI: 6.75 to 341.01), p < 0.001) compared to pigs with class 2 responses (reference level), whereas pigs with class 1 responses had very low odds of having viable cysts (OR = 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00 to 0.14), p < 0.001). The odds of having viable cysts in pigs was also statistically higher for pigs with class 4 responses versus pigs with class 3 responses (reference level, OR = 8.52 (95% CI: 5.61 to 12.92), p = 0.001). Pigs older than 8 months also showed higher odds of having viable cysts (OR: 6.03 (95% CI: 3.26 to 11.18), p < 0.001), while the presence of degenerated cysts was not correlated with statistically higher odds of having viable cysts in the multivariate model (Table 4).
4. Discussion
The diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis is challenging because of the difficulty and limitations of current diagnostic options that can be used in endemic settings [16,40]. Necropsies are impractical in field studies, the tongue test is only moderately sensitive, and serological tests for antigen or antibody detection have low specificity due to cross reactions with other cestode infections [17,22] or cannot differentiate between infection and exposure [19]. Our results demonstrate that the heterogeneity of EITB results can be grouped into four distinct EITB banding pattern classes, and among them, classes 3 and 4 are highly predictive of viable cyst infection (>75%), whereas less than 30% of pigs in class 2 had viable cyst infections, and an even lower proportion of pigs in class 1 had viable cysts. EITB banding patterns can substantially improve the discrimination of viable cysts in porcine populations.
A higher proportion of pigs with EITB banding pattern classes 3 and 4 had viable cysts and also had high cyst loads. These classes involved responses to GP50 and T24/42 antigens but also included responses to 8-kDa antigens that correlate with multiple viable parenchymal NCC and subarachnoid NCC in humans [37]. The higher predictive value for viable swine cysticercosis of EITB classes 3 and 4 compared to class 2 responses can be explained by the presence of 8-kDa bands. These antigens are classified as excretory/secretory proteins [31,41], and therefore, the higher the number of viable cysts in pigs, the greater the production of circulating antigens and the more seroconversion, as reflected in class 3 and class 4 EITB responses.
Pigs with class 1 EITB banding patterns had an almost complete absence of viable infections, as only 2/308 pigs had viable cysts. Similarly, the presence of degenerated cysts in this class was lower (less than 5%) compared with classes 2, 3, and 4. A previous study showed that only 2/13 sera from human cases with a confirmed diagnosis of cysticercosis reacted to the GP50 band alone on EITB (false-positive rate of 84.6%) [42], whereas in a study of pigs experimentally infected with T. hydatigena, the presence of the GP50 band alone indicated cross reactivity against T. hydatigena metacestode antigens [28], highlighting the limited specificity of the GP50 band alone in rural pigs (which may be exposed to a higher number of parasites).
Viable cysts were observed in less than 30% of pigs with class 2 responses, and degenerated cyst infections represented 43.2% of pigs with any cysts in this class, reflecting the persistence of antibody responses to antigens GP42-39 and GP24, which are frequent in class 2 (T24/42 antigen family) [23,43], which may explain the presence of antibodies to these antigens in pigs with degenerated or resolved infections [34]. However, some class 2 pigs with three bands (GP50, GP42-39, and GP24) had a high cyst burden. It is possible that these pigs may also express 8-kDa antigens, which can also migrate to the GP24 band on EITB [31]. In any case, responses of class 2 are not highly predictive of viable infection and should also be considered with caution for diagnosis of viable cysticercosis in naturally infected pigs.
We also observed that pigs older than 8 months had greater odds of having viable cysts in the regression model, and EITB class 3 and 4 responses were also more frequent in pigs older than 8 months. These results are consistent with previous studies [36] and suggest that older pigs have been more exposed to T. solium eggs through their lifetime, with more time to develop cysts and a stronger antibody response than younger pigs [39,44,45].
In our study, LCA identified four EITB banding patterns that reflected characteristic responses against T. solium antigen families. Class 1 includes negative pigs and responses to GP50 antigens alone, while class 2 includes responses to T24/42 antigens, and classes 3 and 4 include responses to GP50, T24/42, and 8-kDa antigens. EITB classes 1 and 2 were more frequent in the total pig population, since GP50, GP42-39, and GP24 antigens belonging to these classes are immunodominant and apparently induce a more persistent immune response [23,46]. Classes 3 and 4 are less common in the pig population [39]. Classes 3 and 4 showed a similar structure, with both classes including responses to 8-kDa antigens. However, LCA recognizes them as distinct, separate classes that present different clinical and a somewhat different sex/age profiles. Pigs with class 4 responses were also more frequent in Huancayo, where pigs were selected using a tongue test, while EITB classes 1 and 2 were more frequent in pigs from community studies in Tumbes and Piura.
Our findings should be interpreted in light of certain potential drawbacks. We did not determine potential confounders such as the presence of other cestode infections (e.g., T. hydatigena), the inclusion of which in the regression model could have provided a more precise estimate of the association between EITB banding patterns and infection outcomes. The use of data from three studies with differences regarding EITB results and infection outcomes may affect the generalizability of our findings. For this reason, we used clustered robust variances that account the correlation of the data by study site in the regression model. Finally, the use of latent classes as predictors in the logistic regression model results in a certain degree of uncertainty associated with a measurement error in the predictor variable, which can produce a bias in the estimation of the regression parameters. Finally, band pattern readings are qualitative rather than quantitative and depend on the expertise of readers, so further studies using quantitative methods, such as Luminex, should more precisely assess the correlation between EITB responses and infection status in porcine cysticercosis.
5. Conclusions
The accurate diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis, the intermediate reservoir of T. solium infections, is a key component for the effectiveness of control strategies. EITB banding patterns correlate strongly with cyst infection status in pigs, and their interpretation improves the diagnosis of cysticercosis in porcine populations. EITB class 3 and class 4 responses are highly predictive of viable cyst infections, whereas class 2 responses are associated with a combination of viable and non-viable cyst infections, and class 1 responses usually represent pigs without cysts. Even if EITB serves as the reference serological test for porcine cysticercosis, its implementation in rural settings is difficult and not affordable. New, easily applicable assays are required, and the availability of recombinant antigens produced from native antigens in rapid assays (for example, using antigens with greater predictive value and their respective banding patterns) may improve the real-time diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis in T. solium-endemic areas.
Conceptualization, G.A. and H.H.G.; methodology, G.A. and A.G.L.; data curation, G.A., C.M.J. and A.E.G.; formal analysis: G.A. and A.G.L.; supervision: H.H.G., A.G.L. and S.E.O.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A.; writing—review and editing, A.G.L., H.H.G., S.E.O., C.M.G., T.L.-U., M.A.-G., L.A.G.-P., J.A.B. and C.M.J.; funding acquisition, A.G.L., A.E.G. and H.H.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Animal Welfare Ethics of San Marcos University (approval number: 2004-007) and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined by the International Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
Not applicable.
The datasets collected for this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Other members of the Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru include Manuela Verastegui, Mirko Zimic, Sofia Sanchez, Carolina Guzman, Manuel Martinez, Holger Mayta, Nancy Chile, Monica Pajuelo, Saul Santivañez, Yesenia Castillo, Luz Toribio, Miguel A. Orrego, Ana Vargas-Calla, Eloy Gonzales-Gustavson, Luz M. Moyano, Ricardo Gamboa, Percy Vilchez, Miguel Muro, and Claudio Muro (Cysticercosis Elimination Program, Tumbes, Peru); Sukwan Handali and John Noh (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA); Theodore Nash, (NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA); and Jon Friedland, (St George, University of London, London, UK). We thank the personnel of the Cysticercosis Unit, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Neurologicas de Lima, for their hard work in EITB processing and for storing samples and results. We also thank the staff of the School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos in Lima for their support in the development of this study.
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest regarding this work. This study uses data and results from the dissertation thesis written by G.A. to obtain his master’s degree in animal health from UNMSM. The funders had no role in study design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; in writing the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Characteristics of the total pig population and distribution by study site.
| Characteristic | Total | Study Site | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumbes (n = 326) | Huancayo (n = 83) | Piura (n = 104) | |||
| Age (months) | |||||
| Median (IQR) | 9 (13) | 7 (15) | 24 (24) | 8 (3) | 0.001 |
| ≤8 months | 237 (46.2) | 176 (54.0) | 8 (9.6) | 53 (51.0) | 0.001 |
| >8 months | 276 (53.8) | 150 (46.0) | 75 (90.4) | 51 (49.0) | |
| Sex | 0.027 | ||||
| Female | 260 (50.7) | 176 (54.9) | 39 (47.0) | 42 (40.4) | |
| Male | 253 (49.3) | 147 (45.1) | 44 (53.0) | 62 (59.6) | |
| EITB Results | |||||
| Positive | 324 (63.2) | 187 (57.4) | 79 (95.2) | 58 (55.8) | 0.001 |
| GP50 | 321 (62.6) | 184 (56.4) | 79 (95.2) | 58 (55.8) | |
| GP42-39 | 204 (39.8) | 86 (26.4) | 77 (92.8) | 41 (34.9) | |
| GP24 | 189 (36.8) | 80 (24.5) | 77 (92.8) | 32 (30.8) | |
| GP21 | 56 (10.9) | 0 (0.0) | 47 (56.6) | 9 (8.7) | |
| GP18 | 59 (11.5) | 0 (0.0) | 48 (57.8) | 11 (10.6) | |
| GP14 | 46 (9.0) | 1 (0.3) | 36 (43.4) | 9 (8.7) | |
| GP13 | 71 (3.8) | 6 (1.8) | 50 (60.2) | 15 (14.4) | |
| Num. of bands | |||||
| Median (IQR) | 1 (3) | 1 (2) | 6 (4) | 1 (3) | 0.001 |
| 0 | 189 (36.8) | 139 (42.6) | 4 (4.8) | 46 (44.2) | 0.001 |
| 1 | 119 (23.2) | 101 (31.0) | 2 (2.4) | 16 (15.4) | |
| 2 | 19 (3.7) | 9 (2.8) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (9.6) | |
| 3 | 108 (21.1) | 71 (21.8) | 20 (24.1) | 17 (16.4) | |
| 4+ | 78 (15.2) | 6 (1.8) | 57 (68.7) | 15 (14.4) | |
| Infection outcomes | |||||
| Num. of pigs with viable cysts * | 106 (20.7) | 18 (5.5) | 76 (91.6) | 12 (11.7) | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with degenerated cysts * | 55 (10.7) | 31 (9.5) | 13 (15.7) | 11 (10.7) | 0.271 |
| Num. of pigs with any cysts * | 130 (25.4) | 39 (12.0) | 76 (91.6) | 15 (14.6) | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with viable cysts/ | 106/130 | 18/39 | 76/76 | 12/15 | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with any cysts * | (81.5) | (46.2) | (100.0) | (80.0) | |
| Num. of pigs with degenerated | 55/130 | 31/39 | 13/76 | 11/15 | 0.001 |
| cysts/Num. pigs with any cysts * | (42.3) | (79.5) | (17.1) | (73.3) | |
| Num. of viable cysts per pig † | |||||
| Median (IQR) | 137 (951) | 2 (53) | 841 (900) | 109 (2131) | 0.001 |
| Num. of degenerated cysts per pig ‡ | |||||
| Median (IQR)) | 4 (13) | 3 (7) | 3 (5) | 26 (72) | 0.021 |
Abbreviations: EITB, enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot; IQR, interquartile range. * Categories are not mutually exclusive; some pigs may be represented in both categories. † Among pigs with viable cysts. ‡ Among pigs with degenerated cysts.
EITB class description and EITB banding patterns in each class.
| Class Description | N | Num. of Reactive Bands | Banding Patterns † | n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | 308 | 0 | 0000000 | 189 (61.4) |
| Class 2 | 127 | 2 | 0110000 | 3 (2.4) |
| Class 3 | 22 | 4 | 1110001 | 17 (77.3) |
| Class 4 | 55 | 5 | 1111100 | 4 (7.3) |
† Values of 0 and 1 indicate the absence or presence, respectively, of each of the EITB bands (GP50, GP42-39, GP24, GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13).
Bivariate comparisons between pig characteristics and EITB banding pattern classes *.
| Characteristics | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class 4 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 308 | n = 127 | n = 22 | n = 55 | ||
| Study site | 0.001 | ||||
| Tumbes | 240 (77.9) | 80 (63.0) | 6 (27.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Huancayo | 6 (2.0) | 20 (15.7) | 10 (45.4) | 47 (85.4) | |
| Piura | 62 (20.1) | 27 (21.3) | 6 (27.3) | 8 (14.6) | |
| Age (months) | 0.001 | ||||
| Median (IQR) | 7 (9) | 10 (12) | 12 (18) | 24 (24) | |
| ≤8 months | 181 (58.8) | 50 (39.4) | 4 (18.2) | 2 (3.6) | 0.001 |
| >8 months | 127 (41.2) | 77 (60.6) | 18 (81.8) | 53 (96.4) | |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 159 (51.6) | 69 (54.3) | 10 (45.4) | 22 (40.0) | 0.316 |
| Male | 149 (48.4) | 58 (45.7) | 12 (54.6) | 33 (60.0) | |
| Infection outcomes | |||||
| Num. of pigs with viable cysts ** | 2 (0.7) | 35 (27.6) | 16 (72.6) | 53 (96.4) | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with degenerated cysts ** | 13 (4.2) | 19 (15.0) | 8 (36.4) | 15 (27.3) | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with any cysts ** | 15 (4.9) | 44 (34.7) | 17 (77.3) | 54 (98.2) | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with viable cysts/ | 2/15 | 35/44 | 16/17 | 53/54 | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with any cysts ** | (13.3) | (79.6) | (94.2) | (98.2) | |
| Num. of pigs with degenerated cysts/ | 13/15 | 19/44 | 8/17 | 15/54 | 0.001 |
| Num. of pigs with any cysts ** | (86.7) | (43.2) | (47.1) | (27.8) | |
| Num. of viable cysts per pig † | |||||
| Median (IQR) | 1 (ND) | 100 (286) | 123 (969) | 1000 (900) | 0.001 |
| Num. of degenerated cysts per pig ‡ | |||||
| Median (IQR) | 1 (5) | 3 (6) | 5 (8) | 1 (75) | 0.083 |
Abbreviations: EITB, enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot; IQR, interquartile range; ND, not determined. * Classes: 1, EITB-negative or only positive for the GP50 band (GP50 antigen family); 2, positive for antigens of the GP50 family (GP50 band), and the T24/42 family (GP42-39 and GP24 bands), but negative for 8-kDa antigens (GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13); 3, positive for the GP50 and T24/42 antigen families and 8-kDa antigens GP13, GP14, and GP18 but negative for GP21; 4, positive for the GP50 and T24/42 antigen families and 8-kDa antigens GP21 and GP18. ** Categories are not mutually exclusive; some pigs may be represented in both categories. † Among pigs with viable cysts. ‡ Among pigs with degenerated cysts.
Odds ratios of having viable cysticercosis according to pig characteristics obtained from logistic regression models *.
| Characteristics | Bivariate Model | Multivariate Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p | OR (95% CI) | p | |
| Age (months) | ||||
| ≤8 months | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| >8 months | 15.85 (5.14 to 48.88) | <0.001 | 6.04 (3.26 to 11.18) | <0.001 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | Ref. | |||
| Male | 1.14 (0.87 to 1.50) | 0.334 | ||
| EITB banding pattern classes ** | ||||
| Class 1 | 0.02 (0.00 to 0.10) | <0.001 | 0.02 (0.00 to 0.14) | <0.001 |
| Class 2 | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| Class 3 | 7.01 (2.29 to 21.49) | 0.001 | 5.63 (1.20 to 26.41) | 0.028 |
| Class 4 | 69.66 (8.60 to 546.39) | <0.001 | 47.99 (6.75 to 341.01) | <0.001 |
| Degenerated cysts | ||||
| Negative | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| Positive | 6.58 (1.91 to 22.72) | 0.003 | 2.22 (0.68 to 7.26) | 0.187 |
Abbreviations: EITB, enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. * Regression models used cluster-robust variances to account for the correlation of the data by study site. ** Classes: 1, EITB–negative or only positive for the GP50 band (GP50 antigen family); 2, positive for antigens of the GP50 family (GP50 band) and the T24/42 family (GP42-39 and GP24 bands), but negative for 8-kDa antigens (GP21, GP18, GP14, and GP13); 3, positive for the GP50 and T24/42 antigen families and 8-kDa antigens GP13, GP14, and GP18 but negative for GP21; 4, positive for the GP50 and T24/42 antigen families and 8-kDa antigens GP21 and GP18.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Dixon, M.A.; Winskill, P.; Harrison, W.E.; Basanez, M.G. Taenia solium taeniasis/cysticercosis: From parasite biology and immunology to diagnosis and control. Adv. Parasitol.; 2021; 112, pp. 133-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.apar.2021.03.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34024358]
2. Coyle, C.M.; Mahanty, S.; Zunt, J.R.; Wallin, M.T.; Cantey, P.T.; White, A.C., Jr.; O’Neal, S.E.; Serpa, J.A.; Southern, P.M.; Wilkins, P. et al. Neurocysticercosis: Neglected but not forgotten. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2012; 6, e1500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001500] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22666505]
3. Coral-Almeida, M.; Gabriel, S.; Abatih, E.N.; Praet, N.; Benitez, W.; Dorny, P. Taenia solium Human Cysticercosis: A Systematic Review of Sero-epidemiological Data from Endemic Zones around the World. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2015; 9, e0003919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003919] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147942]
4. de Coster, T.; Van Damme, I.; Baauw, J.; Gabriel, S. Recent advancements in the control of Taenia solium: A systematic review. Food Waterborne Parasitol.; 2018; 13, e00030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2018.e00030] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32095601]
5. Ndimubanzi, P.C.; Carabin, H.; Budke, C.M.; Nguyen, H.; Qian, Y.J.; Rainwater, E.; Dickey, M.; Reynolds, S.; Stoner, J.A. A systematic review of the frequency of neurocyticercosis with a focus on people with epilepsy. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2010; 4, e870. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000870] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21072231]
6. Carabin, H.; Ndimubanzi, P.C.; Budke, C.M.; Nguyen, H.; Qian, Y.; Cowan, L.D.; Stoner, J.A.; Rainwater, E.; Dickey, M. Clinical manifestations associated with neurocysticercosis: A systematic review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2011; 5, e1152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001152] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21629722]
7. Gripper, L.B.; Welburn, S.C. The causal relationship between neurocysticercosis infection and the development of epilepsy—A systematic review. Infect. Dis. Poverty; 2017; 6, 31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40249-017-0245-y]
8. Nyangi, C.; Stelzle, D.; Mkupasi, E.M.; Ngowi, H.A.; Churi, A.J.; Schmidt, V.; Mahonge, C.; Winkler, A.S. Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to Taenia solium cysticercosis and taeniasis in Tanzania. BMC Infect. Dis.; 2022; 22, 534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07408-0]
9. Beam, M.; Spencer, A.; Fernandez, L.; Atto, R.; Muro, C.; Vilchez, P.; Gamboa, R.; Olaya, S.; Ayvar, V.; Gonzalez, A.E. et al. Barriers to Participation in a Community-Based Program to Control Transmission of Taenia solium in Peru. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 2018; 98, pp. 1748-1754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0929]
10. Kayuni, E.N. Socio-economic and health costs of porcine/human cysticercosis, neurocysticercosis and epilepsy to small-scale pig producers in Tanzania. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent.; 2021; 45, 217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42269-021-00676-x]
11. Lightowlers, M.W.; Donadeu, M. Designing a Minimal Intervention Strategy to Control Taenia solium. Trends Parasitol.; 2017; 33, pp. 426-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2017.01.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28236521]
12. Garcia, H.H.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Tsang, V.C.; O’Neal, S.E.; Llanos-Zavalaga, F.; Gonzalvez, G.; Romero, J.; Rodriguez, S.; Moyano, L.M.; Ayvar, V. et al. Elimination of Taenia solium Transmission in Northern Peru. N. Engl. J. Med.; 2016; 374, pp. 2335-2344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1515520] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27305193]
13. Winskill, P.; Harrison, W.E.; French, M.D.; Dixon, M.A.; Abela-Ridder, B.; Basanez, M.G. Assessing the impact of intervention strategies against Taenia solium cysticercosis using the EPICYST transmission model. Parasit. Vectors; 2017; 10, 73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-1988-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28183336]
14. Lescano, A.G.; Pray, I.W.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Gilman, R.H.; Tsang, V.C.W.; Gamboa, R.; Guezala, M.C.; Aybar, V.; Rodriguez, S.; Moulton, L.H. et al. Clustering of Necropsy-Confirmed Porcine Cysticercosis Surrounding Taenia solium Tapeworm Carriers in Peru. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 2019; 100, pp. 314-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0296]
15. O’Neal, S.E.; Pray, I.W.; Vilchez, P.; Gamboa, R.; Muro, C.; Moyano, L.M.; Ayvar, V.; Gavidia, C.M.; Gilman, R.H.; Gonzalez, A.E. et al. Geographically Targeted Interventions versus Mass Drug Administration to Control Taenia solium Cysticercosis, Peru. Emerg. Infect. Dis.; 2021; 27, pp. 2389-2398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2709.203349]
16. Mlowe, F.; Karimuribo, E.; Mkupasi, E.; Churi, A.; Nyerere, A.D.; Schmidt, V.; Ngowi, H.; Winkler, A.S.; Mlangwa, J. Challenges in the Diagnosis of Taenia solium Cysticercosis and Taeniosis in Medical and Veterinary Settings in Selected Regions of Tanzania: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vet. Med. Int.; 2022; 2022, 7472051. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7472051]
17. Chembensofu, M.; Mwape, K.E.; Van Damme, I.; Hobbs, E.; Phiri, I.K.; Masuku, M.; Zulu, G.; Colston, A.; Willingham, A.L.; Devleesschauwer, B. et al. Re-visiting the detection of porcine cysticercosis based on full carcass dissections of naturally Taenia solium infected pigs. Parasit. Vectors; 2017; 10, 572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2520-y]
18. Guyatt, H.L.; Fevre, E.M. Lingual palpation for porcine cysticercosis: A rapid epidemiological tool for estimating prevalence and community risk in Africa. Trop. Med. Int. Health; 2016; 21, pp. 1319-1323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12760]
19. Sciutto, E.; Martinez, J.J.; Villalobos, N.M.; Hernandez, M.; Jose, M.V.; Beltran, C.; Rodarte, F.; Flores, I.; Bobadilla, J.R.; Fragoso, G. et al. Limitations of current diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of Taenia solium cysticercosis in rural pigs. Vet. Parasitol.; 1998; 79, pp. 299-313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(98)00180-0]
20. Nguyen, M.T.; Gabriel, S.; Abatih, E.N.; Dorny, P. A systematic review on the global occurrence of Taenia hydatigena in pigs and cattle. Vet. Parasitol.; 2016; 226, pp. 97-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.06.034]
21. Cortez, M.M.; Rojas, G.C.; Parkhouse, R.M.E. The HP10 Taenia monoclonal antibody-based ELISA detects a similar protein in the vesicular fluid of Taenia hydatigena. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.; 2018; 50, pp. 697-700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-017-1473-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143908]
22. Kabululu, M.L.; Johansen, M.V.; Mlangwa, J.E.D.; Mkupasi, E.M.; Braae, U.C.; Trevisan, C.; Colston, A.; Cordel, C.; Lightowlers, M.W.; Ngowi, H.A. Performance of Ag-ELISA in the diagnosis of Taenia solium cysticercosis in naturally infected pigs in Tanzania. Parasit. Vectors; 2020; 13, 534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04416-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33109255]
23. Tsang, V.C.; Brand, J.A.; Boyer, A.E. An enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot assay and glycoprotein antigens for diagnosing human cysticercosis (Taenia solium). J. Infect. Dis.; 1989; 159, pp. 50-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/159.1.50] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2909643]
24. Gonzalez, A.E.; Cama, V.; Gilman, R.H.; Tsang, V.C.; Pilcher, J.B.; Chavera, A.; Castro, M.; Montenegro, T.; Verastegui, M.; Miranda, E. et al. Prevalence and comparison of serologic assays, necropsy, and tongue examination for the diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis in Peru. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 1990; 43, pp. 194-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1990.43.194] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2389823]
25. Praet, N.; Rodriguez-Hidalgo, R.; Speybroeck, N.; Ahounou, S.; Benitez-Ortiz, W.; Berkvens, D.; Hul, A.V.; Barrionuevo-Samaniego, M.; Saegerman, C.; Dorny, P. Infection with versus exposure to Taenia solium: What do serological test results tell us?. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 2010; 83, pp. 413-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0121] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20682891]
26. Devleesschauwer, B.; Aryal, A.; Tharmalingam, J.; Joshi, D.D.; Rijal, S.; Speybroeck, N.; Gabriel, S.; Victor, B.; Dorny, P. Complexities in using sentinel pigs to study Taenia solium transmission dynamics under field conditions. Vet. Parasitol.; 2013; 193, pp. 172-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.12.010] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23298565]
27. Gonzalez, A.E.; Verastegui, M.; Noh, J.C.; Gavidia, C.; Falcon, N.; Bernal, T.; Garcia, H.H.; Tsang, V.C.; Gilman, R.H.; Wilkins, P.P. Persistence of passively transferred antibodies in porcine Taenia solium cysticercosis. Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Vet. Parasitol.; 1999; 86, pp. 113-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(99)00106-5]
28. Gomez-Puerta, L.; Vargas-Calla, A.; Castillo, Y.; Lopez-Urbina, M.T.; Dorny, P.; Garcia, H.H.; Gonzalez, A.E.; O’Neal, S.E. Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Evaluation of cross-reactivity to Taenia hydatigena and Echinococcus granulosus in the enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot assay for the diagnosis of porcine cysticercosis. Parasit. Vectors; 2019; 12, 57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3279-5]
29. Hancock, K.; Pattabhi, S.; Greene, R.M.; Yushak, M.L.; Williams, F.; Khan, A.; Priest, J.W.; Levine, M.Z.; Tsang, V.C. Characterization and cloning of GP50, a Taenia solium antigen diagnostic for cysticercosis. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol.; 2004; 133, pp. 115-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molbiopara.2003.10.001]
30. Hancock, K.; Pattabhi, S.; Whitfield, F.W.; Yushak, M.L.; Lane, W.S.; Garcia, H.H.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Gilman, R.H.; Tsang, V.C. Characterization and cloning of T24, a Taenia solium antigen diagnostic for cysticercosis. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol.; 2006; 147, pp. 109-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molbiopara.2006.02.004]
31. Hancock, K.; Khan, A.; Williams, F.B.; Yushak, M.L.; Pattabhi, S.; Noh, J.; Tsang, V.C. Characterization of the 8-kilodalton antigens of Taenia solium metacestodes and evaluation of their use in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for serodiagnosis. J. Clin. Microbiol.; 2003; 41, pp. 2577-2586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.41.6.2577-2586.2003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12791883]
32. Jayashi, C.M.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Castillo Neyra, R.; Rodriguez, S.; Garcia, H.H.; Lightowlers, M.W. Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Validity of the Enzyme-linked Immunoelectrotransfer Blot (EITB) for naturally acquired porcine cysticercosis. Vet. Parasitol.; 2014; 199, pp. 42-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.10.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183647]
33. Garcia, H.H.; O’Neal, S.E.; Noh, J.; Handali, S. Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Laboratory Diagnosis of Neurocysticercosis (Taenia solium). J. Clin. Microbiol.; 2018; 56, e00424-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00424-18] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29875195]
34. Gonzalez, A.E.; Lopez-Urbina, T.; Tsang, B.; Gavidia, C.; Garcia, H.H.; Silva, M.E.; Ramos, D.D.; Manzanedo, R.; Sanchez-Hidalgo, L.; Gilman, R.H. et al. Transmission dynamics of Taenia solium and potential for pig-to-pig transmission. Parasitol. Int.; 2006; 55, pp. S131-S135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2005.11.021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16352459]
35. de Aluja, A.S.; Villalobos, A.N.; Plancarte, A.; Rodarte, L.F.; Hernandez, M.; Sciutto, E. Experimental Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs: Characteristics of the infection and antibody response. Vet. Parasitol.; 1996; 61, pp. 49-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4017(95)00817-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8750683]
36. Gavidia, C.M.; Verastegui, M.R.; Garcia, H.H.; Lopez-Urbina, T.; Tsang, V.C.; Pan, W.; Gilman, R.H.; Gonzalez, A.E. Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Relationship between serum antibodies and Taenia solium larvae burden in pigs raised in field conditions. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2013; 7, e2192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002192]
37. Arroyo, G.; Rodriguez, S.; Lescano, A.G.; Alroy, K.A.; Bustos, J.A.; Santivanez, S.; Gonzales, I.; Saavedra, H.; Pretell, E.J.; Gonzalez, A.E. et al. Antibody Banding Patterns of the Enzyme-Linked Immunoelectrotransfer Blot and Brain Imaging Findings in Patients With Neurocysticercosis. Clin. Infect. Dis.; 2018; 66, pp. 282-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix774]
38. Jayashi, C.M.; Kyngdon, C.T.; Gauci, C.G.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Lightowlers, M.W. Successful immunization of naturally reared pigs against porcine cysticercosis with a recombinant oncosphere antigen vaccine. Vet. Parasitol.; 2012; 188, pp. 261-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.03.055]
39. Garcia, H.H.; Gilman, R.H.; Gonzalez, A.E.; Verastegui, M.; Rodriguez, S.; Gavidia, C.; Tsang, V.C.; Falcon, N.; Lescano, A.G.; Moulton, L.H. et al. Hyperendemic human and porcine Taenia solium infection in Peru. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 2003; 68, pp. 268-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2003.68.268]
40. Donadeu, M.; Fahrion, A.S.; Olliaro, P.L.; Abela-Ridder, B. Target product profiles for the diagnosis of Taenia solium taeniasis, neurocysticercosis and porcine cysticercosis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2017; 11, e0005875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005875]
41. Ferrer, E.; Bonay, P.; Foster-Cuevas, M.; Gonzalez, L.M.; Davila, I.; Cortez, M.M.; Harrison, L.J.; Parkhouse, R.M.; Garate, T. Molecular cloning and characterisation of Ts8B1, Ts8B2 and Ts8B3, three new members of the Taenia solium metacestode 8 kDa diagnostic antigen family. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol.; 2007; 152, pp. 90-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molbiopara.2006.12.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17210192]
42. Furrows, S.J.; McCroddan, J.; Bligh, W.J.; Chiodini, P. Lack of specificity of a single positive 50-kDa band in the electroimmunotransfer blot (EITB) assay for cysticercosis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.; 2006; 12, pp. 459-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01381.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16643523]
43. Plancarte, A.; Hirota, C.; Martinez-Ocana, J.; Mendoza-Hernandez, G.; Zenteno, E.; Flisser, A. Characterization of GP39-42 and GP24 antigens from Taenia solium cysticerci and of their antigenic GP10 subunit. Parasitol. Res.; 1999; 85, pp. 680-684. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004360050615] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10431733]
44. Pondja, A.; Neves, L.; Mlangwa, J.; Afonso, S.; Fafetine, J.; Willingham, A.L., 3rd; Thamsborg, S.M.; Johansen, M.V. Prevalence and risk factors of porcine cysticercosis in Angonia District, Mozambique. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2010; 4, e594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000594]
45. Gulelat, Y.; Eguale, T.; Kebede, N.; Aleme, H.; Fevre, E.M.; Cook, E.A.J. Epidemiology of Porcine Cysticercosis in Eastern and Southern Africa: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Public Health; 2022; 10, 836177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.836177]
46. Tsang, V.C.; Pilcher, J.A.; Zhou, W.; Boyer, A.E.; Kamango-Sollo, E.I.; Rhoads, M.L.; Murrell, K.D.; Schantz, P.M.; Gilman, R.H. Efficacy of the immunoblot assay for cysticercosis in pigs and modulated expression of distinct IgM/IgG activities to Taenia solium antigens in experimental infections. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.; 1991; 29, pp. 69-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-2427(91)90053-F]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) detects antibodies against seven Taenia solium larvae antigens in three protein families (GP50, T24/42, and 8-kDa) with different structures and functions. EITB banding patterns against these antigens in pigs provide information about the course of infection and may discriminate viable cysticercosis. We analyzed the banding patterns and infection outcomes (presence of viable cysts, degenerated cysts, and any cysts) of 512 rural pigs. Banding patterns were grouped into homogenous classes using latent class analysis, and relationships with infection outcomes were assessed. Four classes were identified: 1 (n = 308, EITB-negative or positive for the GP50 family), 2 (n = 127, positive for GP50 (GP50 family), GP42-39 and GP24 (T24/42 family), but negative for 8-kDa antigens), 3 (n = 22, positive for GP50 and T24/42 antigens (GP42-39 and GP24), as well as to 8-kDa bands GP13, GP14, and GP18, but negative for GP21), and 4 (n = 55, positive for GP50 and T24/42 antigens, as well as to 8-kDa antigens GP21 and GP18 in combination). Pigs in classes 3 and 4 were more likely to have viable cysts (72.6% and 96.4%, respectively) than pigs in classes 1 and 2 (0.7% and 27.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). The number of infections with any cysts was higher in classes 3 and 4 (77.3% and 98.2%, respectively) and lower in classes 2 and 1 (34.7% and 4.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). Pigs with viable cysts represented >90% of pigs with any cysts in classes 3 and 4 (94.1% and 98.2%, respectively), while degenerated cysts were frequent among pigs with any cysts in classes 1, 3, and 2 (86.7%, 47.1%, and 43.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). EITB banding patterns strongly correlate with cysticercosis infection status in rural pigs, with classes 3 and 4 being more predictive of viable infections.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Lescano, Andres G 2
; Gavidia, Cesar M 3
; Lopez-Urbina, Teresa 3 ; Ara-Gomez, Miguel 3 ; Gomez-Puerta, Luis A 3 ; Bustos, Javier A 4 ; Jayashi, Cesar M 3 ; Seth E O’Neal 5
; Gonzalez, Armando E 3 ; Garcia, Hector H 4 ; Hide, Geoff1 School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima 15021, Peru;
2 School of Public Health and Administration, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15202, Peru;
3 School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima 15021, Peru;
4 Center for Global Health, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15202, Peru;
5 Center for Global Health, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15202, Peru;