medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2016, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2016; 68 (6)

The Type of Trypanosoma Cruzi Strain (Native or Non-Native) Used as Substrate for Immunoassays Influences the Ability of Screening Asymptomatic Blood Donors

Ballinas-Verdugo MA, Mejía-Domínguez AM, Sánchez-Guerrero SA, Lerma C, Martínez-Cruz M, Álvarez-Manilla-Toquero E, Jiménez-Díaz X, Barrera-Trujillo F, Ticante-Cruz MR, Estevez-Garcia IO, Amezcua-Guerra LM, Reyes-Lopez PA

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 286-291
PDF size: 89.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The origin (native or non-native) of Trypanosoma cruzi strains used as substrate for immunoassays may influence their performance. Objective: To assess the performance of an immunoassay based on a native T. cruzi strain compared to another based on non-native T. cruzi strains, in asymptomatic blood donors from Mexico. Methods: Serum samples from a tertiary referral center were tested by both ELISA-INC9 (native) and Chagatest (non-native) assays. All reactive serum samples were further analyzed by indirect immunofluorescence. Results: Sera from 1,098 asymptomatic blood donors were tested. A 4.3 and 0.7% serum reactivity prevalence was observed using ELISA-INC9 and Chagatest, respectively (kappa = 0.13; −0.11 to 0.38). Subsequently, indirect immunofluorescence analyses showed higher positivity in serum samples reactive by ELISA-INC9 compared to those reactive by Chagatest (79 vs. 62.5%; p ‹ 0.001). Furthermore, out of the 47 positive samples by both ELISA-INC9 and indirect immunofluorescence, only four (8.5%) were reactive in Chagatest assay. Meanwhile, four (80%) out of the five positive samples by both Chagatest and indirect immunofluorescence were reactive using ELISA-INC9. Conclusion: Immunoassays based on a native T. cruzi strain perform better than those based on non-native strains, highlighting the need to develop and validate screening assays in accordance to endemic T. cruzi strains.


REFERENCES

  1. Jurberg C. Chagas: one hundred years later. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87:491-2.

  2. Control of Chagas disease. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2002;905:i-vi, 1-109.

  3. Sanchez-Gonzalez G, Figueroa-Lara A, Elizondo-Cano M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of blood donation screening for Trypanosoma cruzi in Mexico. PLoS Neg Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004528.

  4. Finkelman J. Innovative community-based ecosystem management for dengue and Chagas disease prevention in low and middle income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015;109:89-90.

  5. Escamilla-Guerrero G, Martinez-Gordillo MN, Riveron-Negrete L, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: seroprevalence detected in the blood bank of the Instituto Nacional de Pediatria, Mexico City, in the period 2004 through 2009. Transfusion. 2012;52:595-600.

  6. Novelo-Garza BA, Benitez-Arvizu G, Pena-Benitez A, Galvan- Cervantes J, Morales-Rojas A. [Detection of Trypanosoma cruzi in blood donors]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2010;48:139-44.

  7. Basile L, Jansa JM, Carlier Y, et al. Chagas disease in European countries: the challenge of a surveillance system. Euro Surveill. 2011;16.

  8. Coura JR, Vinas PA, Junqueira AC. Ecoepidemiology, short history and control of Chagas disease in the endemic countries and the new challenge for non-endemic countries. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2014;109:856-62.

  9. Afonso AM, Ebell MH, Tarleton RL. A systematic review of high quality diagnostic tests for Chagas disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1881.

  10. Control of Chagas disease. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1991;811:1-95.

  11. Machado CA, Ayala FJ. Nucleotide sequences provide evidence of genetic exchange among distantly related lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:7396-401.

  12. Souto RP, Fernandes O, Macedo AM, Campbell DA, Zingales B. DNA markers define two major phylogenetic lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1996;83:141-52.

  13. Ruiz-Sanchez R, Leon MP, Matta V, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from Mexican and Guatemalan acute and chronic chagasic cardiopathy patients belong to Trypanosoma cruzi I. Mem Instit Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100:281-3.

  14. Bosseno MF, Barnabe C, Magallon Gastelum E, et al. Predominance of Trypanosoma cruzi lineage I in Mexico. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:627-32.

  15. Fernandes O, Santos S, Junqueira A, et al. Populational heterogeneity of Brazilian Trypanosoma cruzi isolates revealed by the mini-exon and ribosomal spacers. Mem Instit Oswaldo Cruz. 1999;94(Suppl 1):195-7.

  16. Ballinas-Verdugo M, Reyes PA, Mejia-Dominguez A, Lopez R, Matta V, Monteon VM. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and polymerase chain reaction performance using Mexican and Guatemalan discrete typing unit I strains of Trypanosoma cruzi. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1569-75.

  17. Monteon VM, Guzman-Bracho C, Floriani-Verdugo J, Ramos- Echevarria A, Velasco-Castrejon O, Reyes PA. [Serological diagnosis of Chagas disease: self-sufficiency and interlaboratory concordance]. Salud Pub Mex. 1995;37:232-5.

  18. Silver H, Tahhan HR, Anderson J, Lachman M. A non-computerdependent prospective review of blood and blood component utilization. Transfusion. 1992;32:260-5.

  19. Wendel S. Transfusion transmitted Chagas disease: is it really under control? Act Trop. 2010;115:28-34.

  20. Sanchez B, Monteon V, Reyes PA, Espinoza B. Standardization of micro-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blot for detection of Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies using extracts from Mexican strains as antigens. Arch Med Res. 2001; 32:382-8.

  21. Remesar M, Sabino EC, Del Pozo A, Mayer A, Busch MP, Custer B. Bimodal distribution of Trypanosoma cruzi antibody levels in blood donors from a highly endemic area of Argentina: what is the significance of low-reactive samples? Transfusion. 2015;55: 2499-504.

  22. Levin MJ, Franco da Silveira J, Frasch AC, et al. Recombinant Trypanosoma cruzi antigens and Chagas’ disease diagnosis: analysis of a workshop. FEMS Microbiol Immunol. 1991;4:11-9.

  23. Langhi DM, Bordin JO, Castelo A, Walter SD, Moraes-Souza H, Stumpf RJ. The application of latent class analysis for diagnostic test validation of chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection in blood donors. Braz J Infect Dis. 2002;6:181-7.

  24. Tibayrenc M. Genetic epidemiology of parasitic protozoa and other infectious agents: the need for an integrated approach. Int J Parasitol. 1998;28:85-104.

  25. Souto RP, Zingales B. Sensitive detection and strain classification of Trypanosoma cruzi by amplification of a ribosomal RNA sequence. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1993;62:45-52.

  26. Brisse S, Barnabe C, Tibayrenc M. Identification of six Trypanosoma cruzi phylogenetic lineages by random amplified polymorphic DNA and multilocus enzyme electrophoresis. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:35-44.

  27. Brisse S, Verhoef J, Tibayrenc M. Characterisation of large and small subunit rRNA and mini-exon genes further supports the distinction of six Trypanosoma cruzi lineages. Int J Parasitol. 2001;31:1218-26.

  28. Tibayrenc M. Genetic subdivisions within Trypanosoma cruzi (Discrete Typing Units) and their relevance for molecular epidemiology and experimental evolution. Kinetoplastid Biol Dis. 2003; 2:12.

  29. Zingales B, Andrade SG, Briones MR, et al. A new consensus for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific nomenclature: second revision meeting recommends TcI to TcVI. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009; 104:1051-4.

  30. Guzman Bracho C, Garcia Garcia L, Floriani Verdugo J, et al. [Risk of transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi by blood transfusion in Mexico]. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 1998;4:94-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com