ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Development and evaluation of a lateral flow assay for detecting Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A rapid lateral flow assay using recombinant major surface protein 5 (MSP5) was developed and evaluated for detection of antibodies to Anaplasma marginale in cattle. Sera samples collected from A. marginale known positive and negative animals (as confirmed by microscopic examination of stained blood smears, MSP5 gene based nested PCR and rMSP5 antigen based indirect ELISA), when probed for anti-MSP5 antibodies in the LFA, gave distinct immunoreactivity with all the known positive sera in the test and control lines, while the known negative sera showed no immunoreactivity in the test line. The rMSP5 LFA showed no cross-reactivity with B. bigemina, T. annulata and T. evansi positive animals. The test was further validated using 314 sera samples collected from cattle of endemic regions of north India. The results indicated that the developed LFA had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 86.72%, 86.36% and 83.43%, respectively with respect to nested PCR, and 89.81%, 85.71% and 88.53%, respectively, with respect to rMSP5 based indirect ELISA. A substantial agreement was observed between rMSP5-LFA and nested PCR (k = 0.6878) as well as between rMSP5-LFA and rMSP5-ELISA (k = 0.7387), illustrating LFA's applicability as rapid, simple and field-deployable diagnostic assay for the detection of A. marginale antibodies in naturally infected cattle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474614What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.