Volume 10, Number 3—March 2004
Research
Laboratory Analysis of Tularemia in Wild-Trapped, Commercially Traded Prairie Dogs, Texas, 2002
Jeannine M. Petersen*
, Martin E. Schriefer*, Leon G. Carter*, Yan Zhou*, Tara Sealy*, Darcy Bawiec*, Brook Yockey*, Sandra Urich*, Nordin S. Zeidner*, Swati Avashia†, Jacob L. Kool*, Jan Buck‡, Connie Lindley‡, Leos Celeda§, John A. Monteneiri*, Kenneth L. Gage*, and May C. Chu*
, Martin E. Schriefer*, Leon G. Carter*, Yan Zhou*, Tara Sealy*, Darcy Bawiec*, Brook Yockey*, Sandra Urich*, Nordin S. Zeidner*, Swati Avashia†, Jacob L. Kool*, Jan Buck‡, Connie Lindley‡, Leos Celeda§, John A. Monteneiri*, Kenneth L. Gage*, and May C. Chu*Table 2
Comparison of diagnostic sensitivities of culture and direct fluorescent assay (DFA) for detection of Francisella tularensis in live versus dead prairie dogs (groups A–C)
| Prairie dogsa | No. (%) of samples positive for: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture (spleen/liver) | Direct fluorescence (spleen/liver) | Direct fluorescence (lymph node) | Serologic testing | |
| Groups B, C; live, infected animals
(n = 20) |
20 (100) |
10 (50) |
17 (89.5)b |
10 (50) |
| Group A, dead animals (n = 47) | 40 (85.1) | 47 (100) | Not tested | Not tested |
aAll 67 prairie dogs tested positive for F. tularensis by at least one diagnostic test (culture, DFA, or serologic testing).
b19 F. tularensis–positive animals were tested.
