↓ Skip to main content

Further evidence of the cross-reactivity of the Binax NOW® Filariasis ICT cards to non-Wuchereria bancrofti filariae: experimental studies with Loa loa and Onchocerca ochengi

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Further evidence of the cross-reactivity of the Binax NOW® Filariasis ICT cards to non-Wuchereria bancrofti filariae: experimental studies with Loa loa and Onchocerca ochengi
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1556-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Wanji, Nathalie Amvongo-Adjia, Abdel Jelil Njouendou, Jonas Arnaud Kengne-Ouafo, Winston Patrick Chounna Ndongmo, Fanny Fri Fombad, Benjamin Koudou, Peter A. Enyong, Moses Bockarie

Abstract

The immunochromatographic test (ICT) for lymphatic filariasis is a serological test designed for unequivocal detection of circulating Wuchereria bancrofti antigen. It was validated and promoted by WHO as the primary diagnostic tool for mapping and impact monitoring for disease elimination following interventions. The initial tests for specificity and sensitivity were based on samples collected in areas free of loiasis and the results suggested a near 100 % specificity for W. bancrofti. The possibility of cross-reactivity with non-Wuchereria bancrofti antigens was not investigated until recently, when false positive results were observed in three independent studies carried out in Central Africa. Associations were demonstrated between ICT positivity and Loa loa microfilaraemia, but it was not clearly established if these false positive results were due to L. loa or can be extended to other filarial nematodes. This study brought further evidences of the cross-reactivity of ICT card with L. loa and Onchocerca ochengi (related to O. volvulus parasite) using in vivo and in vitro systems. Two filarial/host experimental systems (L. loa-baboon and O. ochengi-cattle) and the in vitro maintenance of different stages (microfilariae, infective larvae and adult worm) of the two filariae were used in three experiments per filarial species. First, whole blood and sera samples were prepared from venous blood of patent baboons and cattle, and applied on ICT cards to detect circulating filarial antigens. Secondly, larval stages of L. loa and O. ochengi as well as O. ochengi adult males were maintained in vitro. Culture supernatants were collected and applied on ICT cards after 6, 12 and 24 h of in vitro maintenance. Finally, total worm extracts (TWE) were prepared using L. loa microfilariae (Mf) and O. ochengi microfilariae, infective larvae and adult male worms. TWE were also tested on ICT cards. For each experiment, control assays (whole blood and sera from uninfected babon/cattle, culture medium and extraction buffer) were performed. Positive ICT results were obtained with whole blood and sera of L. loa microfilaremic baboons, culture supernatants of L. loa Mf and infective larvae as well as with L. loa Mf protein extracts. In contrast, negative ICT results were observed with whole blood and sera from the O. ochengi-cattle system. Surprisingly, culture supernatant of O. ochengi adult males and total worm extracts (Mf, infective larvae and adult worm) were positive to the test. This study has provided further evidence of L. loa cross-reactivity for the ICT card. All stages of L. loa seem capable of inducing the cross-reactivity. Onchocerca ochengi. can also induce cross-reactivity in vitro, but this is less likely in vivo due to the location of parasite. The availability of the parasite proteins in the blood stream determines the magnitude of the cross-reactivity. The cross-reactivity of the ICT card to these non-W. bancrofti filariae poses some doubts to the reliability and validity of the current map of LF of Central Africa that was generated using this diagnostic tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,802,399
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,821
of 5,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,880
of 298,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#129
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.