You are here:
A COMPARISON OF FOUR FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY BASED METHODS FOR PURIFYING, DETECTING AND CONFIRMING CRYPTOSPORIDIUM PARVUM IN SURFACE WATERS
Citation:
Lindquist, H.D A., M W. Ware, R E. Stetler, L J. Wymer, AND F W. Schaefer III. A COMPARISON OF FOUR FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY BASED METHODS FOR PURIFYING, DETECTING AND CONFIRMING CRYPTOSPORIDIUM PARVUM IN SURFACE WATERS. JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY 87(5):1124-1131, (2001).
Impact/Purpose:
1) Refine new molecular and antibody labeling method for the detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in water.
2) Determine the occurrence and distribution of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in water supplies
Description:
Cryptosporidiosis has been traced to drinking contaminated surface water, either not treated, or ineffectively treated. Testing to detect Cryptosporidium parvum in surface water has been suggested to help prevent future outbreaks. This study compared purifications and detection steps from 4 testing methods. The same sampling and filtration were used for all methods. The methods were: modified information collection rule (ICR) method, method 1623 (both developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), a flow cytometric method, and a solid phase cytometric method. Fluorescent antibody staining is only a presumptive indication of the presence of this parasite, confirmation requires another assay. Methods were evaluated for both presumptive and confirmed detection. Solid phase cytometry had the highest presumptive and confirmed detection rates. Flow cytometry had the next highest presumptive detection rate in reagent water, but was third in spiked environmental waters, with no confirmation procedure. The ICR method had the third highest presumptive detection rate in reagent water and the second highest in spiked environmental waters, but failed to confirm any oocysts. Method 1623 had significantly lower presumptive detection than any other method, and significantly lower confirmation rate than the solid phase cytometry method.