Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 18;59(7):e0300620.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.03006-20. Epub 2021 Jun 18.

Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Pathogenic Leptospira Species in Urine and Blood Samples in Canine Vaccine Clinical Studies: a Rapid Alternative to Classical Culture Methods

Affiliations

Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Pathogenic Leptospira Species in Urine and Blood Samples in Canine Vaccine Clinical Studies: a Rapid Alternative to Classical Culture Methods

Stephanie Blanchard et al. J Clin Microbiol. .

Abstract

Leptospirosis is a vaccine-preventable bacterial zoonotic disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. The efficacy of Leptospira canine vaccines is assessed by challenging vaccinated and control dogs with virulent serovars of Leptospira, followed by detection of Leptospira in blood and urine. We assessed the consistency between results obtained for urine and blood samples from clinical studies with species-specific real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting the lipL32 gene and those obtained with the reference culture method. The specificity of the qPCR assay was confirmed by negative results for nonpathogenic Leptospira and for several canine viruses, bacteria, and parasites. The results from the two methods were compared using McNemar's test, kappa coefficient (κ), and percentage of agreement analyses. The results for numbers of positive and negative dogs were similar, with no false-negative results with the qPCR assay. For both blood and urine, there was strong agreement between the culture method and qPCR results (κ = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62 to 0.74] and κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.71], respectively). However, there was a statistically significant difference between blood samples (P < 0.001) and urine samples (P = 0.028). The negative percentage agreements were 97% and 84% and the positive percentage agreements were 68% and 83% for blood and urine samples, respectively. Although the cell culture method is the recommended gold standard, our results show that qPCR assay is a valid alternative method for the rapid and specific detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in urine and blood samples during vaccine efficacy studies, without loss of sensitivity.

Keywords: clinical study; lipL32 gene; pathogenic Leptospira spp.; real-time PCR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Schematic representation of the onset of immunity and duration of immunity clinical study design. Time point zero (T0) was 2 weeks after the second injection of L3 or 3 weeks after Veriscan vaccination for the onset-of-immunity (OOI) studies and about 1 year for the duration-of-immunity (DOI) studies. Red arrows represent time points for blood samples, and yellow arrows represent time points for urine samples. Lc, Leptospira interrogans serovar Canicola; Lg, Leptospira interrogans serovar Grippotyphosa; Li, Leptospira interrogans serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae.
FIG 2
FIG 2
Results from six onset of immunity studies in which dogs were challenged with L. Canicola (Lc), L. Grippotyphosa (Lg), or L. Icterohaemorrhagiae (Li), as indicated. Number of positive dogs per study group with leptospirae in blood and urine samples detected using culture method (white bars) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay (black bars).
FIG 3
FIG 3
Example of results with culture method (white bars) and qPCR assay (black bars) in blood and urine samples from one of the duration-of-immunity studies (study 7), in which dogs were challenged with L. Grippotyphosa (Lg). The numbers of positive dogs at each time point in the vaccinated and control groups are shown.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Levett PN. 2001. Leptospirosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 14:296–326. 10.1128/CMR.14.2.296-326.2001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adler B, de la Peña Moctezuma A. 2010. Leptospira and leptospirosis. Vet Microbiol 140:287–296. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.03.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldstein RE. 2010. Canine leptospirosis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 40:1091–1101. 10.1016/j.cvsm.2010.07.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schuller S, Francey T, Hartmann K, Hugonnard M, Kohn B, Nally JE, Sykes J. 2015. European consensus statement on leptospirosis in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 56:159–179. 10.1111/jsap.12328. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gebriel AM, Subramaniam G, Sekaran SD. 2006. The detection and characterization of pathogenic Leptospira and the use of OMPs as potential antigens and immunogens. Trop Biomed 23:194–207. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources