Mini Review

Centauro Research Group, Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Antioquia UdeA, Colombia

Submission:July 12, 2022; Published:August 01, 2022

*Corresponding author: Nathalia M Correa Valencia, Centauro Research Group, Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Antioquia UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia

How to cite this article: Nathalia M C V. Diagnostic Alternatives for Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in Domestic Ruminants: “Well, Nobody’s Perfect” (Some Like It Hot, 1959). Dairy and Vet Sci J. 2022; 15(1): 555908.DOI: 10.19080/JDVS.2022.15.555908

Abstract

The knowledge of the prevalence of an infection of such a microorganism as MAP (Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis)- considering its very precise individualities, is the key issue when deciding which control measures to apply, in the precise individualities of a geographic region. The absence of scientific-based information about the prevalence of bovine paratuberculosis (PTB) could restrict the possibilities of systematic interventions for a problem already confirmed and known by the sanitary authorities, but without information on prevalence, epidemiology, and impact or economical losses, such confirmation is worthless. For the antemortem diagnosis of PTB in domestic ruminants, an important number of testing alternatives are available and recommended, including those used to detect MAP-cellular response, specific antibodies, MAP genes, and even only MAP growth. In this sense, the sensitivity and specificity of such tests vary significantly depending on the infection stage and inherent characteristics of the methods. In this reviewing appraisal, the advantages and disadvantages of currently available MAP diagnostic alternatives are revised, with the firm intention of proposing a response to a changing biological and methodological reality.

Keywords: Cattle; Diagnosis; Johne´s disease; Sensitivity; Specificity

Abbreviations: MAP: Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis ; PTB: Paratuberculosis; IFN: Interferon; ELISA: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction

Mini Review

The knowledge of the prevalence of an infection of such a microorganism as MAP (Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis) - considering its very precise features, is the key issue when deciding which control measures to apply, in the also precise individualities of a geographic region. The absence of scientific-based information about the prevalence of bovine paratuberculosis (PTB) could restrict the possibilities of systematic interventions for a problem already confirmed and known by the sanitary authorities, but without information on prevalence, epidemiology, and impact or economical losses, such confirmation is worthless. Since the epidemiological information on this disease is still scarce, the economic impact on dairy health and production will remain uncalculated, and the potential zoonotic risk unattended, which is of main concern for all industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

An important number of testing alternatives are available and recommended for the antemortem diagnosis of PTB in domestic ruminants, including those aiming to detect anti-MAP immune cellular response and antibodies, MAP genes, or the bacteria itself on different matrices [1-4]. The test´s sensitivity and specificity vary depending on the infection phase and inherent characteristics of the tests [5].

On the first front of diagnostic alternatives are those based on the early immune response to MAP infection consists primarily of a cellular response characterized by the secretion of interferon (IFN)-γ [6-8], almost exclusively in those animals moving into stage II of the disease (this is, inapparent carrier adults), also presenting high MAP concentrations in their intestinal tissues [9]. Contrary to what one would think, such animals do not manifest weight loss or diarrhea even with increased IFN-γ production by sensitized T cells pointing to specific mitogens and an increased anti-MAP antibodies antibody response [10-12]. Nevertheless, the results of this kind of in vitro test may not be representative of the general population and could be difficult to extrapolate and interpret [5].

The in vivo version of the previously mentioned test allows visualizing IFN-γ production from a measurable skin reaction, caused by the intradermal injection of johnin since the skin thickness is measured before and 72 hours after the inoculation of the purified antigen. Increases >2 mm indicate the occurrence of delayed-type hypersensitivity. However, sensitization to the Mycobacterium avium complex is widespread in livestock and other animals, and neither avian tuberculin nor johnin is highly specific. The specificity of this test is close to 80%, but its sensibility cut-off values had not been established so far [13-15].

Antibody-based tests being the most popular one, the enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), relies on the occurrence of an immune response against MAP infection [16]. ELISA is also the most extensively used to establish herd-level PTB status, in other words, for epidemiological studies. Several commercial ELISA kits for PTB diagnosis are currently available, and multiple studies have compared their accuracy and usefulness in different animal hosts and matrices [7,8,17-26]. ELISA has shown limitations, mainly those related to a low sensitivity, which is really related to the progress of the disease, rather than to limitations of the test itself, since the slow progression of MAP infection does not ensure an adequate detection capacity of animals in an early stage [6,16]. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of ELISA is the highest for animals in the clinical stage of the disease or those that excrete a considerable number of bacteria [27,28]. As an extra advantage, ELISA is highly specific with a low presentation of false-positive results [16,25,29], inexpensive, easy to perform, and quantitative results can be obtained in 1-2 hours in everyday practice [16,30].

From a more modern point of view, the detection of MAP genes by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has shown advantages, including speed, specificity, lack of contamination, and no additional tests are needed to confirm MAP identity. On the other hand, moderate sensitivity, high cost, special equipment, and skilled personnel are required. Despite the latter, due to recent developments in PCR, it is being proposed for herd screening [1,31].

PCR performs as culture confirmatory test, but its direct application to clinical samples has been challenging, mainly due to the problems associated with complex matrices such as milk, feces, and blood, and, of course, the presence of inhibitors [32-34]. It is important to highlight those limits on detection, sensitivity, and specificity vary according to the targeted sequence and primer choice as well as the matrix tested and the PCR format (i.e. conventional gel-based PCR, reverse transcriptase PCR, nested PCR, real-time PCR, multiplex PCR). Molecular setups and methods for MAP enrichment or concentration are flexible, presenting pros and cons reliant on the matrices used and the way to be accomplished [35-36].

Last but not least, culture is still considered the gold standard for MAP detection and PTB diagnosis [5,37,38]. Its sensitivity is around 44% in MAP-infected cattle [5], due to the irregular shedding of bacteria and diverse features of the culture technique per se [39]. This result inevitably affects the sensitivity of the technique (culture) and the matrix (feces), leading to low detection performance, even of symptomatic animals. The specificity is almost 100% [5], even higher if the obtained isolates are confirmed as MAP by molecular methods such as PCR [5,40,41]. Disadvantages of culture include long detection time-mainly when a solid culture media is used, 12 to 16 weeks or longer, recognition of only animals actively eliminating MAP in feces, contamination risk with other mycobacteria or fungi, and the relatively high fees when compared to other tests [42]. The culture of MAP can be done either on liquid or solid media. Liquid culture methods have greater analytical and diagnostics sensitivity than solid medium and growth can be detected sooner, but a formal identification of MAP by genotypic methods is required (i.e. PCR), making the identification of MAP more difficult and expensive [39,43]. On the other hand, the identification of the organism is more difficult in liquid culture because the appearance of colonies and mycobactin dependence are not observable, and the growth of other organisms needs to be distinguished. Moreover, solid culture is more sensitive to recover C strains of MAP, since the ability of solid media to support their growth is well established [43].

Culture of pooled fecal samples as well as environmental sampling, are cost-effective approaches in the classification of herds as MAP-infected [17,44-51].

When a test combination is on the horizon -whatever the formula is, it must be considered that some infected cows have been producing antibodies several years prior to being able to find detectable quantities of MAP in feces. Or another way of saying it is that antibodies may not be detectable during the preliminary stages of infection, when MAP fecal shedding is minimal [16,52,53].

In any case, sampling of all adult cattle in every herd (mainly those over 2 years of age) -increasing the detection spectrum, and of the environment, the consideration of serialized testing, and the use of two or three tests have been suggested for herd screening and to increase the accurateness of MAP diagnosis, being the most reliable strategy when sanitary decisions must be made [1,31,54- 57].

In the future, the improvement of laboratory diagnostic capacities is needed, increasing research foundations in the microbiologic, immunologic, epidemiologic, and economic aspects of the agent and the disease, even in consideration of the specific conditions of each biological or productive region, because “Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates... you never know what you’re gonna get” (Forrest Gump).

References

1. Collins MT, Gardner IA, Garry FB, Roussel AJ, Wells SJ (2006) Consensus recommendations on diagnostic testing for the detection of paratuberculosis in cattle in the United States. JAVMA 229: 1912-1919.
2. Clark DL, Koziczkowski JJ, Radcliff RP, Carlson RA, Ellingson JLE (2008) Detection of Mycobacterium avium Subspecies paratuberculosis: Comparing fecal culture versus serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and direct fecal polymerase chain reaction. J Dairy Sci 91: 2620-2627.
3. Gilardoni LR, Paolicchi FA, Mundo SL (2012) Bovine paratuberculosis: a review of the advantages and disadvantages of different diagnostic tests. Rev Arg Microbiol 44(3): 201-215.
4. Chaubey KK, Gupta RD, Gupta S, Singh SV, Bhatia AK, et al (2016) Trends and advances in the diagnosis and control of paratuberculosis in domestic livestock. Vet Quart 36(4): 203-227.
5. Nielsen SS, Toft N (2008) Ante mortem diagnosis of paratuberculosis: A review of accuracies of ELISA, interferon-γ assay and faecal culture techniques. Vet Microbiol 129(3-4): 217-235.
6. Mon ML, Viale M, Baschetti G, Alvarado-Pinedo F, Gioffre A, et al (2012) Search for Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis antigens for the diagnosis of paratuberculosis. Vet Med Int 2012: 860362.
7. Buendía AJ, Navarro JA, Salinas J, McNair J, de Juan L, et al (2013) Ante-mortem diagnosis of caprine tuberculosis in persistently infected herds: Influence of lesion type on the sensitivity of diagnostic tests. Res Vet Sci 95(3): 1107-1113.
8. Sonawane GG, Tripathi BN (2013) Comparison of a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) with conventional PCR, bacterial culture and ELISA for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in sheep showing pathology of Johne’s disease. SpringerPlus 2: 45.
9. Fecteau M, Whitlock R (2010) Paratuberculosis in Cattle. In: Paratuberculosis: Organism, Disease, Control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, England, pp, 144-156
10. Bassey EOE, Collins MT (1997) Study of T-lymphocyte subsets of healthy and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cattle. Infect Immun 65(11): 4869-4872.
11. Paolicchi FA, Zumarraga MJ, Gioffre A, Zamorano P, Morsella C, et al (2003) Application of different methods for the diagnosis of paratuberculosis in a dairy cattle herd in Argentina. J Vet Med (Series B) 50(1): 20-26.
12. Huda A, Jungersen G, Lind P (2004) Longitudinal study of interferon-gamma, serum antibody and milk antibody responses in cattle infected with Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis Vet Microbiol 104(1-2): 43-53.
13. Jürgens K, Matz C (2002) Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Anton Leeuw Int J G 81(1-4): 413-434.
14. Kalis CHJ, Collins MT, Hesselink JW, Barkema HW (2003) Specificity of two tests for the early diagnosis of bovine paratuberculosis based on cell-mediated immunity: The Johnin skin test and the gamma interferon assay. Vet Microbiol 97(1-2): 73-86.
15. Kennedy AE, da Silva AT, Byrne N, Govender R, MacSharry J, O’Mahony J, Sayers RG (2014) The single intradermal cervical comparative test interferes with Johne’s disease ELISA diagnostics. Front Immunol 5: 564.
16. Nielsen SS (2010) Immune-based diagnosis of paratuberculosis. In: Paratuberculosis: Organism, Disease, Control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, England, pp. 284-293
17. Donat K, Schlotter K, Erhardt G, Brandt HR (2014) Prevalence of paratuberculosis in cattle and control measures within the herd influence the performance of ELISA tests. Vet Rec 174(5): 119.
18. Lavers CJ, Barkema HW, Dohoo IR, McKenna SLB, Keefe GP (2014) Evaluation of milk ELISA for detection of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in dairy herds and association with within-herd prevalence. J Dairy Sci 97(1): 299-309.
19. Lavers CJ, Dohoo IR, McKenna SLB, Keefe GP (2015) Sensitivity and specificity of repeated test results from a commercial milk enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in dairy cattle. JAVMA 246(2): 236-44.
20. Nielsen SS, Toft N (2014) Bulk tank milk ELISA for detection of antibodies to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: Correlation between repeated tests and within-herd antibody-prevalence. Prev Vet Med 113(1): 96-102.
21. Galiero A, Turchi B, Pedonese F, Nuvoloni R, Cantile C, et al (2017) Serological, culture and molecular survey of Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis in a goat flock in Tuscany. Folia Microbiol 62(6): 471-477.
22. Barber BM, Bell N, Van Winden S (2019) Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis seroconversion in dairy cattle and its association with raised somatic cell count. Vet Rec 185(12): 374.
23. Luttikholt S, Lievaart-Peterson K, Gonggrijp M, Aalberts M, van Schaik G, et al. (2019) Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis ELISA responses in milk samples from vaccinated and nonvaccinated dairy goat herds in The Netherlands. Vet Sci 6(2): 58.
24. Mathevon Y, Foucras G, Corbière F (2019) Flock sensitivity and specificity of pooled fecal qPCR and pooled serum ELISA for screening ovine paratuberculosis. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0226246.
25. Bates A, Laven R, O’Brien R, Liggett S, Griffin F (2020) Estimation of the sensitivity and specificity of four serum ELISA and one fecal PCR for diagnosis of paratuberculosis in adult dairy cattle in New Zealand using Bayesian latent class analysis. Prev Vet Med 185: 105199.
26. Selim A, Abdelhady A, Abdelrahman A (2020) Ovine paratuberculosis: Seroprevalence and comparison of fecal culture and direct fecal PCR assay. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 74: 101526.
27. Hendrick SH, Duffield TF, Kelton DF, Leslie KE, Lissemore KD, et al (2005) Evaluation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays performed on milk and serum samples for detection of paratuberculosis in lactating dairy cows. JAVMA 226(3): 424-428.
28. Boniface-Okuni J, Oyo T, Kisekka M, Ochwo S, Kalenzi-Atuhaire D, et al (2013) Detection of antibodies and confirmation of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis using nested PCR in bulk milk samples from Nakasongola and Sembabule Districts, Uganda. Int Sch Res Notices 2013: 1-5.
29. Harris NB, Barletta RG (2001) Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Veterinary Medicine. Clin Microbiol Rev 14(3): 489-512.
30. Costanzo G, Pinedo FA, Mon ML, Viale M, Gil A, et al (2012) Accuracy assessment and screening of a dairy herd with paratuberculosis by three different ELISAs. Vet Microbiol 156: 183-188.
31. Stevenson K (2010) Diagnosis of Johne’s Disease: Current limitations and prospects. Cattle Pract 18: 104-109.
32. Aly SS, Mangold BL, Whitlock RH, Sweeney RW, Anderson RJ, et al (2010) Correlation between Herrold egg yolk medium culture and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction results for Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in pooled fecal and environmental samples. J Vet Diagn Invest 22(5): 677-683.
33. Leite FL, Stokes KD, Robbe-Austerman S, Stabel JR (2013) Comparison of fecal DNA extraction kits for the detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis by polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Diagn Inv 25(1): 27-34.
34. Selim A, Abdelhady A, Abdelrahman A (2020) Ovine paratuberculosis: Seroprevalence and comparison of fecal culture and direct fecal PCR assay. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 74: 101526.
35. Möbius P, Hotzel, H, Raßbach A, Köhler H (2008) Comparison of 13 single-round and nested PCR assays targeting IS900, ISMav2, f57 and locus 255 for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Vet Microbiol 126(4): 324-333.
36. Bölske G, Herthnek D (2010) Diagnosis of paratuberculosis by PCR. In: Paratuberculosis: Organism, Disease, Control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, England, pp. 267-283
37. van Schaik G, Pradenas FM, Mella NA, Kruze VJ (2007) Diagnostic validity and costs of pooled fecal samples and individual blood or fecal samples to determine the cow- and herd-status for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Prev Vet Med 82(1-2): 159-165.
38. Whittington R (2010) Cultivation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. In: Paratuberculosis: Organism, Disease, Control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, England, pp. 244-266.
39. Eamens GJ, Whittington RJ, Marsh IB, Turner MJ, Saunders V, et al (2000) Comparative sensitivity of various faecal culture methods and ELISA in dairy cattle herds with endemic Johne’s disease. Vet Microbiol 77(3-4): 357-367.
40. Schönenbrücher H, Abdulmawjood A, Failing K, Bülte M (2008) New triplex real-time PCR assay for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in bovine feces. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(9): 2751-2758.
41. Whittington RJ, Marsh IB, Saunders V, Grant IR, Juste R, et al (2011) Culture phenotypes of genomically and geographically diverse Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates from different hosts. J Clin Microbiol 49(5): 1822-1830.
42. Collins MT (1996) Diagnosis of paratuberculosis. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 12: 357-371.
43. Whittington RJ (2009) Factors affecting isolation and identification of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis from fecal and tissue samples in a liquid culture system. J Clin Microbiol 47(3): 614-622.
44. Berghaus RD, Farver TB, Anderson RJ, Jaravata CC, Gardner IA (2006) Environmental sampling for detection of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis on large California dairies. J Dairy Sci 89(3): 963-970.
45. Eamens GJ, Whittington RJ, Turner MJ, Austin SL, Fell SA, et al (2007) Evaluation of radiometric faecal culture and direct PCR on pooled faeces for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in cattle. Vet Microbiol 125(1-2): 22-35.
46. Raizman EA, Espejo LA, Wells SJ (2011) Long-term survival of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in fecal samples obtained from naturally infected cows and stored at -18°C and -70°C. Vet Med Int 2011: 341691.
47. Donat K, Kube J, Dressel J, Einax E, Pfeffer M, Failing K (2015) Detection of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in environmental samples by faecal culture and real-time PCR in relation to apparent within-herd prevalence as determined by individual faecal culture. Epidemiol Infect 143(5): 975-985.
48. Klawonn W, Einax E, Pützschel R, Schmidt M, Donat K (2016) Johne’s disease: Reliability of environmental sampling to characterize Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) infection in beef cow-calf herds. Epidemiol Infect 144(11): 2392-2400.
49. Corbett CS, Naqvi SA, De Buck J, Kanevets U, Kastelic, JP, et al (2018) Environmental sample characteristics and herd size associated with decreased herd-level prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. J Dairy Sci 101(9): 8092-8099.
50. Correa-Valencia NM, Ramírez NF, Arango-Sabogal J., Fecteau G. Fernández-Silva JA (2019) Prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in dairy herds in Northern Antioquia (Colombia) and associated risk factors using environmental sampling. Prev Vet Med 170: 104739.
51. Schwalm AK, Metzger-Boddien C, Seemann G, Mandl J, Obiegala A, et al (2019) Field study on bovine paratuberculosis using real-time PCR and liquid culture for testing environmental and individual fecal samples implemented in dairy cow management. J Dairy Sci 102(12): 11260-11267.
52. Kalis CHJ, Barkema HW, Hesselink JW, Van Maanen C, Collins MT (2002) Evaluation of two absorbed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and a complement fixation test as replacements for fecal culture in the detection of cows shedding Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. J Vet Diagn Invest 14(3): 219-224.
53. McKenna SLB, Keefe GP, Tiwari A, VanLeeuwen J, Barkema HW (2006) Johne’s disease in Canada part II: Disease impacts, risk factors, and control programs for dairy producers. Can Vet J 47(11): 1089-1099.
54. Serraino A, Arrigoni N, Ostanello F, Ricchi M, Marchetti G, et al (2014) A screening sampling plan to detect Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis-positive dairy herds. J Dairy Sci 97(6): 3344-3351.
55. Garg R, Patil PK, Singh SV, Sharma S, Gandham RK, et al (2015) Comparative evaluation of different test combinations for diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis infecting dairy herds in India. BioMed Res Int 2015: 983978.
56. More SJ, Cameron AR, Strain S, Cashman W, Ezanno P, et al (2015) Evaluation of testing strategies to identify infected animals at a single round of testing within dairy herds known to be infected with Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis. J Dairy Sci 98(8): 5194-5210.
57. Beaver A, Sweeney RW, Hovingh E, Wolfgang DR, Gröhn YT, et al. (2017) Longitudinal relationship between fecal culture, fecal quantitative PCR, and milk ELISA in Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis -infected cows from low-prevalence dairy herds. J Dairy Sci 100: 7507-7521.