Comparative assessment of the performance of a commercial fluorescent microsphere immunoassay and three commercial ELISAs for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae serum antibody detection

Brooklyn M Cauwels,Ronaldo L Magtoto,Maria J Clavijo,Ana Paula S Poeta Silva,Bailey L Arruda,Jeffrey J Zimmerman,David H Baum,Luis G Giménez-Lirola
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2024.110826
Abstract:Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyopneumoniae) is a significant porcine respiratory disease complex pathogen, prompting many swine farms and production systems to pursue M. hyopneumoniae elimination strategies. Antibody testing is cost-effective in demonstrating sustained freedom from M. hyopneumoniae, often replacing PCR testing on deep tracheal swabs. The process typically involves testing a subpopulation of the herd using an M. hyopneumoniae screening antibody ELISA, with non-negative results further assessed through confirmatory testing, such as PCR. Recently, a commercial (Biovet) fluorescent microsphere immunoassay (FMIA) for detecting M. hyopneumoniae antibodies has been introduced as an alternative to ELISA. Its performance was compared to three commercial ELISAs (Idexx, Hipra, and Biochek) using experimental serum samples from pigs inoculated with M. hyopneumoniae, M. hyorhinis, M. hyosynoviae, M. flocculare, or mock-inoculated with Friis medium. FMIA consistently detected M. hyopneumoniae at earlier time points than the ELISAs, although two false-positive results were encountered using the manufacturer's recommended cutoff. ROC analysis allowed for the evaluation of various cutoffs depending on testing objectives. Poisson regression of misclassification error counts detected no difference in the Biovet FMIA and Hipra ELISA but significantly fewer misclassification errors than Idexx and Biocheck ELISAs. This study showed FMIA as a suitable alternative to traditional ELISAs for screening purposes due to its superior antibody detection rate at early stages. Alternatively, adopting a more stringent cutoff to improve diagnostic specificity could position the FMIA as a viable confirmatory test option. Overall, FMIA is an optimal choice for M. hyopneumoniae antibody surveillance testing, offering versatility in testing strategies (e.g., triplex FMIA M. hyopneumoniae/PRRSV types 1 and 2) and contributing to improved diagnostic capabilities in porcine health management.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?