Further evaluation of recombinant Tsol-p27 by enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot for the serodiagnosis of cysticercosis in pigs from Mozambique

Porcine cysticercosis has a negative impact on human health and the meat industry, as it makes infected meat unaproprieted for consuption and it is the main etiology of epileptic seizures in developing countries. There are multiple serological assays that use crude antigens with high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of both porcine and human cysticercosis. Nonetheless, antigen preparation is time-consuming, needs a well-equipped laboratory and trained personnel and places those manipulating the meat at great risk for infection. New serodiagnostic approaches to the diagnosis of porcine and human cysticercosis have been directed towards the development of recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid technology for the generation of synthetic proteins that can serve as simplified, low-cost and harmless substitutes for native antigens. The

While Tsol-p27 recombinant protein might be suitable for testing human sera, its performance in pigs is not acceptable, so other recombinant proteins should be evaluated alone or multiplexed.

We studied a panel of 83 naturally infected pig sera from Angónia District, Mozambique, an endemic area for porcine and human cysticercosis. These sera were previously tested by antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Ag-ELISA) to detect antigens of T. solium. The serum panel was processed by enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) assay against the recombinant Tsol-p27 protein and the Ag-ELISA assay results were used to compare and evaluate the performance of Tsol-p27 for the diagnosis of cysticercosis. Out of 83 sera, 24 (29.0%) were positive for Tsol-p27 and 59 (71%) were negative in the same assay. From the 37 sera that tested positive to Ag-ELISA, 11 (13.3%) were positive to Tsol-p27, while from 46 sera that tested negative to Ag-ELISA, 33 (39.7%) also tested negative to Tsol-p27. The sensitivity and specificity of Tsol-p27 was 29.7% and 71.7%, respectively, while the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 45.8% and 55.9%, respectively, as calculated using Medcalc® version 15.0 software (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium).