Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30165859›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2018

Mycoplasma bovis antibody dynamics in naturally exposed dairy calves according to two diagnostic tests.

Mette Bisgaard Petersen, Nadeeka K Wawegama, Matthew Denwood, Philip F Markham, Glenn F Browning, Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of the novel Pictor PictVet™Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Prevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  12. Field Experience of Antibody Testing againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mette Bisgaard PetersenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870, Frederiksberg, Denmark. mbp@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7195-2103
Nadeeka K WawegamaAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Matthew DenwoodDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Philip F MarkhamAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Glenn F BrowningAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Liza Rosenbaum NielsenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInexpensive and convenient diagnostic tests for use in clinical work and for the surveillance of infection with Mycoplasma bovis are in demand. The objective of this longitudinal field study was to gain knowledge about the dynamics of antibodies against M. bovis in sera from naturally exposed calves with and without different clinical signs, measured by two different ELISA tests.

resultsA total of 83 calves were subject to between one and five blood samples and clinical examinations using a standard protocol during five herd visits to each of four outbreak dairy herds. The blood samples were analysed for the presence of antibodies against M. bovis using the commercial IgG ELISA test BioX K302 (BioX) and an in-house indirect IgG ELISA test (MilA ELISA). Linear mixed models were used to describe and compare the antibody dynamics as measured by the two tests in relation to the disease status and age of the animals. The BioX ELISA response was below the recommended cut-off (37 ODC%) for the entire study period in many of the calves. The estimated mean ODC% increased slowly but did not reach the recommended individual animal cut-off in three of the four herds. The highest estimated ODC% was not reached until the calf was 110-130 days old. The MilA ELISA response rose above the recommended cut-off (135 antibody units (AU)) in almost all calves, and in two herds, the estimated mean was above the individual animal cut-off shortly after the birth of the calf. The highest estimated antibody concentration was reached when the calf was approximately 60 days old. Disease status of the calf was not significantly associated with the results of either test.

conclusionsWe conclude that the BioX ELISA cannot be recommended for use in calves below 3 months of age. The MilA ELISA was able to detect antibodies shortly after birth (i.e. from approximately 3 weeks of age and onwards) and is therefore a more sensitive test for M. bovis exposure in young calves. Neither ELISA seemed able to differentiate between calves with arthritis and/or otitis media, and respiratory disease.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialAntibody FormationCattleCattle DiseasesDenmarkDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDisease OutbreaksEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayMycoplasma bovisMycoplasma InfectionsAntibodies, BacterialAntibodyBioX bio K 302Dairy calvesELISAMilA ELISAMycoplasma bovis

Identifiers

PMID30165859
PMCPMC6117878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.