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.
Page created: February 08, 2011
Page updated: February 08, 2011
Page reviewed: February 08, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.