Comparative examination of a rapid immunocytochemical test for the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in domestic birds in field outbreaks

ABSTRACT

The quantitative real-time reverse polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) is the preferred test method for the diagnosis of avian influenza (AI), but can be performed only in specialized laboratories. Different antigen detection methods for the diagnosis of AI were previously reported to be specific and sensitive in field outbreaks. These tests can be performed in basic countryside labs. Brain smears of domestic birds (n = 105) collected during AI field outbreaks were examined with immunocytochemistry (IC). The results were statistically analysed by comparing IC to brain histology (BH), and immunohistochemistry (IHC), to gross pathological examination (GP) (n = 105), and RRT-PCR (n = 91). AI was diagnosed with RRT-PCR in 66 cases. IC and IHC were positive in 59/66 (90%) and 60/66 (91%) cases, respectively. Lesions suspicious for AI were detected with GP and HP in 66/66 (100%) and 61/66 (92%) cases, respectively. An almost perfect agreement was found between RRT-PCR, IC, IHC, and HP. Substantial agreement was found between IC and GP, between IHC and GP, between HP and GP, and between RRT-PCR and GP. The chromogen-based IC test presented in this study produces durable staining, which can be evaluated using a simple brightfield microscope. The test is rapid (can be completed in 2 h), sensitive (90%), specific (100%), and cost-effective, which makes the method suitable for routine diagnostic tests in AI epidemics.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

• Avian influenza virus (AIV) antigen detection was examined in field outbreaks.

• Bird brain smears were tested using immunocytochemistry (IC).

• IC results strongly correlated with real-time RT-PCR results.

• The IC method was rapid, specific, sensitive, and cost-effective in AIV field outbreaks.

KEYWORDS:

• Avian influenza
• field outbreak
• brain
• domestic bird
• diagnosis
• immunocytochemistry

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the laboratory staff of the Veterinary Diagnostic Directorate, National Food Chain Safety Office, Budapest.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.