1. Comparison of selected diagnostic methods for identification of Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium andersoni in routine examination of faeces
- Author
-
G Půzová, Oleg Ditrich, Dana Kvetonová, and Martin Kváč
- Subjects
Diagnostic methods ,Cattle Diseases ,Cryptosporidiosis ,Cryptosporidium ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Microbiology ,chemistry.chemical_compound ,Feces ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Animals ,Cryptosporidium parvum ,Chromatography ,biology ,Staining and Labeling ,Cryptosporidium andersoni ,General Medicine ,biology.organism_classification ,Staining ,Dairying ,chemistry ,Cattle ,Female ,Parasitology ,Caesium chloride - Abstract
This study involved the comparison of suitability of different methods for routine diagnostics of Cryptosporidium spp. Two staining methods, one concentration-sedimentation method, seven concentration-floatation methods and one combined floatation-sedimentation method were compared. The methods were tested with two concentrations (1 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6)/g) of C. parvum and C. andersoni. The methods were evaluated using light microscope, magnification 400x for concentration methods and 1000x for stained samples respectively. Specificity of both staining methods was 95-100%. Ziehl-Neelsen with P < 0.01 is more suitable for identification of C. andersoni and modified Milacek-Vitovec with P < 0.01 for identification of C. parvum. Concerning specificity and sensitivity, the floatation-concentration method by Sheather was found to provide the best results of all selected methods. The merthiolate iodine formaldehyde concentration (MIFC) method was the least specific one. The least suitable method concerning sensitivity and costs was the floatation method with caesium chloride (CsCl) with a specificity of 29%.
- Published
- 2003