preprint · Research Square (Research Square)
<title>Abstract</title> For years, the Kato-Katz (KK) technique has been considered the gold standard for diagnosing schistosomiasis. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of our previously developed gold nanoparticle-based lateral flow test strip (AuNPs-LFTS) for diagnosing active Schistosoma mansoni with that of the commercially available point-of-care Circulating Cathodic Antigen detection (POC-CCA) kit. In this study, we collected sixty positive and twenty negative urine samples from patients in endemic hot spots in the Nile Delta, as well as from patients visiting the internal medicine clinic at Theodor Bilharz Research Institute (TBRI). We produced monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against <italic>S. mansoni</italic> soluble egg antigen (SEA) from cloned hybridoma cells (4D/1D). These MAbs were conjugated with gold and mesoporous silica nanoparticles, and used to develop the LFTS. The LFTS demonstrated a limit of detection (LoD) of 3 ng/ml. The sensitivity and specificity of the developed LFTS were found to be 96.7% and 95%, respectively, compared to 85% and 90% for the POC-CCA detection kit. The cases were divided into groups based on egg count in the stool, categorized as light, moderate, and heavy infections. The sensitivity of the LFTS in the group with light infection was higher than that of the POC-CCA. When using the KK technique (eggs per gram of stool sample [EPG]) as the reference test, the kappa value for the nano-based strips was 0.902, compared to 0.672 for the CCA strips, indicating an almost perfect agreement between KK and our developed LFTS. These results confirm the reliability and effectiveness of the LFTS compared to commercially available kits for rapid, sensitive, and early diagnosis of schistosomiasis. However, it is recommended to conduct further assessments of the developed strip on a larger scale with a broader range of cases before considering its introduction to local or international markets
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4535875/v1
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
