Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Comparison of PCR with other tests for early diagnosis of canine ehrlichiosis.

Z Iqbal, W Chaichanasiriwithaya, Y Rikihisa
Z Iqbal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W Chaichanasiriwithaya
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Y Rikihisa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to compare the sensitivity of PCR with those of cell culture reisolation of Ehrlichia canis, the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFA), and Western immunoblotting (WI) in the early diagnosis of canine ehrlichiosis. Five German shepherd dogs were intravenously inoculated with 10(7) E. canis-infected DH82 cells. Blood was collected on alternate days during a 2-week postinoculation period. Mononuclear cell fractions were harvested and used for E. canis reisolation and DNA extraction for PCR. The plasma was used for assaying antibodies against E. canis. By PCR, the 16S rRNA gene of E. canis was detected in the mononuclear cell specimens collected as early as day 4 to 10 postexposure (PE). E. canis was reisolated from the blood starting on day 2 PE from all five dogs. The indirect fluorescent antibody test and Western immunoblotting could detect E. canis antibodies as early as 2 to 8 days PE. Cell culture reisolation proved to be the most sensitive and definitive for early diagnosis of ehrlichiosis, but it is not very convenient, since it takes a long time (14 to 34 days) to show up positive. The sensitivity of PCR is comparable to or slightly less than that of other established methods; however, the convenience, quickness, and direct nature of detecting E. canis DNA is expected to make PCR more useful for clinical diagnosis.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of PCR with other tests for early diagnosis of canine ehrlichiosis.
Z Iqbal, W Chaichanasiriwithaya, Y Rikihisa
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1994, 32 (7) 1658-1662; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of PCR with other tests for early diagnosis of canine ehrlichiosis.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of PCR with other tests for early diagnosis of canine ehrlichiosis.
Z Iqbal, W Chaichanasiriwithaya, Y Rikihisa
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1994, 32 (7) 1658-1662; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X