Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluation of chimeric recombinant antigens for the serodiagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs: a promising tool for Chagas disease surveillance

Parasites & Vectors volume 17, Article number: 305 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Chagas disease (CD), a neglected parasitic disease caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, poses a significant health threat in Latin America and has emerged globally because of human migration. Trypanosoma cruzi infects humans and over 100 other mammalian species, including dogs, which are important sentinels for assessing the risk of human infection. Nonetheless, the serodiagnosis of T. cruzi in dogs is still impaired by the absence of commercial tests. In this study, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of four chimeric recombinant T. cruzi IBMP antigens (IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4) for detecting anti-T. cruzi antibodies in dogs, using latent class analysis (LCA).

Methods

We examined 663 canine serum samples, employing indirect ELISA with the chimeric antigens. LCA was utilized to establish a latent variable as a gold standard for T. cruzi infection, revealing distinct response patterns for each antigen.

Results

The IBMP (Portuguese acronym for the Molecular Biology Institute of Paraná) antigens achieved area under the ROC curve (AUC) values ranging from 90.9% to 97.3%. The highest sensitivity was attributed to IBMP-8.2 (89.8%), while IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4 achieved 73.5%, 79.6%, and 85.7%, respectively. The highest specificity was observed for IBMP-8.4 (98.6%), followed by IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.1 with specificities of 98.3%, 94.4%, and 92.7%, respectively. Predictive values varied according to prevalence, indicating higher effectiveness in endemic settings.

Conclusions

Our findings underscore the remarkable diagnostic performance of IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 for the serodiagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs, representing a promising tool for the diagnosis of CD in dogs. These chimeric recombinant antigens may not only enhance CD surveillance strategies but also hold broader implications for public health, contributing to the global fight against this neglected tropical disease.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Chagas disease (CD), caused by the hemoflagellate protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi, is a significant neglected parasitic disease affecting humans, especially in Latin American countries. An estimated 5.7–6 million individuals are affected, leading to roughly 10,000 annual fatalities [1]. The primary mode of transmission occurs through the feces of blood-sucking triatomine bugs, placing around 70 million people at risk [1]. Additionally, transmission can happen through blood transfusion, ingestion of contaminated food and beverages, vertical transmission, and accidental laboratory exposure [2]. In recent years, CD has transcended the Americas because of increasing migration, emerging as a global public health concern in various regions worldwide [3, 4].

Clinically, the course of CD can be divided into two phases. The acute phase typically initiates 1–2 weeks post-infection and persists for 2–3 months. It is characterized by high parasitemia and nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms, including pyrexia, tachycardia, and lymphadenopathy [5]. The lifelong chronic phase encompasses two forms: indeterminate and symptomatic. The indeterminate form represents a latent period during which individuals display no clinical signs or symptoms but test positive for the disease through serological testing. Roughly 30–40% of chronically infected individuals progress to the symptomatic form, which can further be categorized as cardiac, digestive, or mixed forms [5]. The diagnosis of CD infection in the chronic phase is complex. Due to intermittent or low parasitemia combined with high anti-T. cruzi antibody levels, diagnosis necessitates the use of antigen-antibody detection techniques through laboratory-based methods. Additionally, given the absence of an accurate reference test, the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization conventionally recommend the use of two serological assays based on different antigens and/or methodologies concomitantly to achieve an accurate diagnosis [6].

In addition to humans, T. cruzi infects over 100 species of domestic and wild mammals [7]. Domestic animals like chickens, pigs, dogs, and cats heighten the risk of human infection by attracting triatomine bugs [8, 9]. Animals can also acquire infection through blood transfusion, vertical transmission, and orally, via the transmammary route or ingestion of infected insects [10, 11]. Among domestic animals, dogs play a pivotal role in sustaining the domestic and peridomestic cycle of T. cruzi. They can be infected through various modes of transmission [12] and may serve as primary host, sentinel, and reservoir of T. cruzi in this epidemiological context [10, 13,14,15]. There is a correlation between seropositivity in humans and dogs in proximity [16]. For instance, adults and children residing in households with seropositive dogs are at a higher risk of infection [16]. Additionally, certain dogs exhibit high parasitemia, attracting vectors and demonstrating high susceptibility to infection [17,18,19]. Consequently, these animals are recognized as sentinels, as their infection precedes human infection, signaling an active parasite transmission cycle and a potential risk of human infection [20]. Dogs may also develop clinical signs and clinicopathological abnormalities similar to those in humans, rendering them valuable as an experimental model for CD. In severe cases, dogs may experience morphofunctional changes in the cardiac and digestive systems, potentially leading to sudden death [21,22,23,24].

Despite the significant role of dogs in the context of CD, there are currently no commercially available tests for detecting the infection in these animals. Previous studies on canine CD have utilized in-house serological assays incorporating native and/or full-length recombinant antigens, resulting in variable diagnostic performance [25]. Recent advances, such as the use of recombinant antigens like the chimeric IBMP proteins (IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4) have shown promising results for the diagnosis of chronic CD in humans [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], also exhibiting encouraging performance in dogs [33, 36,37,38]. A phase I study in dogs demonstrated that all antigens effectively differentiate between positive and negative samples, regardless of whether the infection was experimental or natural. Specifically, IBMP-8.3 and IBMP-8.4 antigens exhibited sensitivity and specificity values exceeding 97.5% [36]. Due to the absence of a reference test for diagnosing CD in humans, we previously adopted a latent class analysis (LCA) approach to mitigate biases arising from the inaccuracies of commercial tests [28]. This approach resulted in high-performance metrics for each IBMP antigen, as validated in several studies [31, 39,40,41]. The limitations are even greater for dogs because of the lack of commercial tests. Therefore, in this phase II study, we investigated the diagnostic performance of four chimeric recombinant T. cruzi IBMP antigens (IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4) for detecting anti-T. cruzi antibodies in dogs by in-house ELISA, using latent class analysis (LCA).

Methods

Synthesis of chimeric antigens

The chimeric antigens (IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4) employed in this investigation were synthesized following the procedure outlined by Santos et al. [26]. Initially, nucleotide sequences were cloned into the pET28a vector and expressed in Escherichia coli BL21-Star DE3. These cells were cultured in lysogeny broth (LB) supplemented with 0.5 M isopropyl-β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG). Subsequently, bacterial cell lysis was achieved using microfluidification, and the antigens were purified through affinity and ion exchange chromatography. The quantification of chimeric antigens was carried out using fluorimetry with the Qubit 2.0 instrument (Invitrogen Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA).

Sample collection

To determine the appropriate sample size, this study employed the statistical program OpenEpi [42], considering a sensitivity of 99%, specificity of 99%, absolute error of 1.5%, and confidence level of 95%. Consequently, a minimum of 169 sera from T. cruzi-positive dogs and 169 sera from T. cruzi-negative dogs were required. In total, 663 serum samples from dogs were included in the sample panel to assess the diagnostic performance of all four chimeric antigens using ELISA (Fig. 1). These samples were sourced from previous investigations and were collected in various T. cruzi endemic settings in Brazil, including Bahia (BA; n = 181), Pernambuco (PE; n = 402), and Rio Grande do Norte (RN; n = 80). All serum samples underwent testing through indirect ELISA, utilizing the four chimeric antigens (IBMP-ELISA). The samples were preassigned unique codes to guarantee a blinded analysis conducted by the operator.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study analysis design flowchart. This figure illustrates the study design in accordance with the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines. Key abbreviations include N/n (number of samples) and LCA (latent class analysis)

Full size image

IBMP-ELISA

Immunoassays were conducted following the procedure outlined by Leony et al. [36]. Flat-bottom 96-well polystyrene microtiter plates (Nunc Maxisorp®, USA) were coated with one of the chimeric IBMP antigens at concentrations of 25 ng per well in 100-µl coating buffer (0.05 M carbonate/bicarbonate buffer solution, pH 9.6). Sensitization, stabilization, and blocking were concurrently performed using a synthetic buffer (batch 130,703; WellChampion; Kem-En-Tec Diagnostics A/S, Taastrup, Denmark) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Serum samples, diluted 1:100 in 0.05 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; pH 7.4), were added to the coated wells, and the microtiter plates were incubated at 37 °C for 60 min. Following incubation, the wells were washed five times with 250 µl of wash solution (PBS-Tween; 10 mM sodium phosphate, 150 mM sodium chloride, and 0.5% Tween-20, pH 7.4) to remove non-adsorbed material. Subsequently, the plates were incubated again at 37 °C for 30 min with 100 µl HRP-conjugated anti-dog globulin IgG (Bio-Manguinhos, Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil) diluted at 1:20,000 (IBMP-8.3) and 1:40,000 (IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, and IBMP-8.4) in PBS. After another wash cycle, 100 µl of chromogenic TBM substrate (Kem-En-Tec Diagnostics A/S, Taastrup, Denmark) was added to each well, and microtiter plates were incubated for 10 min in the dark at room temperature. The colorimetric reactions were interrupted by adding 50 μl of 0.3 M H2SO4 to each well. Optical density (OD) was measured in a microplate reader equiped with a 450-nm filter (SPECTRAmax 340PC®; Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA, USA), with background values subtracted from the measurement experiments.

Data analysis

LCA was conducted using a statistical model to establish a latent variable and to be subsequently utilized as the gold standard for the diagnosis of T.cruzi infection. LCA, a multivariate statistical approach, is based on the analysis of response patterns of categorical indicators (i.e., chimeric antigens) that express a latent categorical construct/variable [43]. Four binary indicators represented the responses (“negative” and “positive”) of the chimeric antigens IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4. LCA model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood. The set of conditional probabilities estimated by LCA is used to describe the likelihood of a specific response (negative/positive) for a chimeric antigen given the individual’s membership in the corresponding latent class. The interpretation of these estimates are used to label the latent class related to the T.cruzi diagnosis. Various criteria were employed to assess the LCA model, including Akaike information criteria (AIC), Bayesian information criteria (BIC), and entropy. Lower AIC and BIC values indicate a better fit, while an entropy value near one indicates high classification quality. Conditional independence was evaluated using bivariate residuals. All analyzes were conducted using Mplus v5.2 software (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA). Considering the entire sample panel, 326 out of 663 samples (89 from BA, 195 from PE, and 42 from RN) were randomly selected to define the gold standard for determining the presence of anti-T. cruzi antibodies via LCA. The remaining samples were used to estimate diagnostic performance (n = 337) for each chimeric antigen based on the previously defined latent class response patterns, along with a corresponding 95% confidence interval. Data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism v 9.5.1 software (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Descriptive data were presented as medians along with interquartile range (IQR) intervals. To assess data normality of ELISA results, the Shapiro-Wilk test was applied. If data did not confirm to the assumption of homogeneity, the Wilcoxon’s signed rank test was utilized. All analyses employed a two-tailed approach, with statistical significance defined as P < 0.05. Cutoff values for T. cruzi diagnosis were determined by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). AUC values were categorized as low (0.51–0.61), moderate (0.62–0.81), elevated (0.82–0.99), or outstanding (1.0) based on previously established criteria [44]. Results were expressed in index format, denoting the signal-to-cutoff ratio between samples’s OD and the cutoff OD for each microplate. This index is henceforth referred to as reactivity index (RI), with values < 1.00 classified as negative. Samples with RI values within 1.0 ± 10% were categorized as indeterminate, representing a gray zone and considered inconclusive. Various parameters, including sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), accuracy (Acc), and predictive values, were estimated, including their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The strength of agreement between LCA and ELISA tests was assessed using Cohen’s kappa (κ) analysis, with interpretation as follows: poor (κ ≤ 0), slight (0 < κ ≤ 0.20), fair (0.21 < κ ≤ 0.40), moderate (0.41 < κ ≤ 0.60), substantial (0.61 < κ ≤ 0.80), and near perfect agreement (0.81 < κ ≤ 1.0) [45]. Trypanosoma cruzi positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were estimated within a hypothetical prevalence range (from 0.05 to 0.60). In adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines [46], a flowchart (Fig. 1) and checklist   were prepared to ensure transparency and standardization in reporting methodology and results.

Results

Latent class analysis

In this study, a total of 663 samples were included. Approximately 50% of these samples (326 out of 663) were randomly selected to identify and characterize the latent class using LCA based on the response patterns of the four chimeric antigens. A two-class LCA model for CD diagnosis (positive/negative) was selected. The probabilities that each of the chimeric antigens predicted seropositivity in the samples were as follows: 79.1% for IBMP-8.1, 88.1% for IBMP-8.2, 73.4% for IBMP-8.3, and 73.2% for IBMP-8.4. Conversely, the likelihood of misclassifying a negative sample as positive was relatively low, with estimated misclassification rates of 8.3% for IBMP-8.1, 0.6% for IBMP-8.2, 5.1% for IBMP-8.3, and 1.9% for IBMP-8.4. Notably, the overall accuracy of classification was demonstrated by a high entropy value of 0.949. Figure 2 illustrates the response patterns, according to the diagnostic results for positive and negative samples tested using the four chimeric antigens. These patterns were categorized according to the number of negative assays among the four antigens: P1 (no positive results), P2 (25% positive results), P3 (50% positive results), P4 (75% positive results), and P5 (100% positive results). While the number of samples in each pattern varied, the highest frequencies were observed in the P1 (n = 245), P2 (n = 40), and P5 (n = 26) categories. Samples were classified as positive when they tested positive for at least two chimeric antigens (P3-P5), with a posteriori probability (PP) of diagnosis surpassing 68%. However, cases where a sample tested positive for both IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.3 were deemed negative because of a PP < 50% (PP = 44.8%). Similarly, samples were classified as negative when they exhibited no positive results or only one positive result for IBMP antigens (P1 and P2), with PP values falling below 31%.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Response patterns for the four chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens, a posteriori probabilities for Chagas disease diagnosis from the LCA, and classification of canine serum samples for Chagas disease diagnosis. The samples are denoted as P1–P5 based on their respective response patterns in the chimeric assay. Negative and positive outcomes for a specific chimeric antigen assay are represented by blue and red squares, respectively. Key abbreviations include LCA (latent class analysis), N (number of samples), Neg (negative), Pos (positive), PP (a posteriori probability associated with anti-T. cruzi antibody presence)

Full size image

Individual IBMP-ELISA performance using LCA

LCA classified 288 samples (85.5%) as negative, while 49 samples (14.5%) were predicted to be positive for anti-T. cruzi antibodies. Among the samples classified as negative, 245 out of 288 (85.1%) were also negative for all four chimeric antigens by ELISA (Fig. 2). In turn, 40 out of 288 samples (13.9%) exhibited positivity for only one antigen: 18 for IBMP-8.1, five for IBMP-8.2, 13 for IBMP-8.3, and four for IBMP-8.4. The a posteriori probability of these samples being truly positive was < 31%, confirming their correct classification as negative (Fig. 2). The remaining three samples classified as negative were positive for both IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.3, with a posteriori probability < 45%. Regarding samples predicted to be positive by LCA, 26 out of 49 (53.1%) were positive for all IBMP antigens, while 12 out of 49 (24.5%) samples exhibited positivity for two antigens: two for IBMP-8.1 + IBMP-8.2, two for IBMP-8.2 + IBMP-8.3, six for IBMP-8.2 + IBMP-8.4, and two for IBMP-8.3 + IBMP-8.4. The probability of these samples being truly positive was > 68.7%, indicating a high likelihood of correct positive classification. The remaining 11 samples classified as positive were positive for three antigens: three for IBMP-8.1 + IBMP-8.2 + IBMP-8.3, two for IBMP-8.1 + IBMP-8.2 + IBMP-8.4, and three for each set of IBMP-8.1 + IBMP-8.3 + IBMP-8.4 and IBMP-8.2 + IBMP-8.3 + IBMP-8.4, with a posteriori probability of these samples being positive exceeding 99% (Fig. 2).

The results of the LCA were used as a gold standard to obtain a reliable estimate of the performance of each chimeric assay. AUC analysis yielded values ranging from 90.9% for IBMP-8.1 and 93.8% for IBMP-8.3 to 97.1% for IBMP-8.2 and 97.3% for IBMP-8.4. These findings indicate a high overall capacity of all four IBMP chimeric antigens to accurately identify T. cruzi serological status in dogs.

Concerning positive sera, those positive for IBMP-8.2 exhibited the highest IgG levels (RI = 1.41; IQR 1.19–1.71), while the lowest levels were observed for IBMP-8.1 (RI = 1.24; IQR 0.92–1.57), with no significant difference between them. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the RIs between IBMP-8.3 (RI = 1.33; IQR 1.09–1.45) and IBMP-8.4 (RI = 1.33; IQR 1.11–1.64). Among the 49 positive samples, IBMP-8.2 demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.8%, with five cases classified as false negative; of these samples, two were also classified as false negatives only for IBMP-8.1. More false-negative results were observed for IBMP-8.1 (13 cases), IBMP-8.3 (10 cases), and IBMP-8.4 (7 cases), with corresponding sensitivity values of 73.5%, 79.6%, and 85.7%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in the sensitivity values. In the negative samples, IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 showed specificity values ≥ 98%, whereas IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.3 produced more false positives, with corresponding specificity values of 92.7% (21 false positives) and 94.4% (16 false positives), respectively. Sera positive for IBMP-8.1 (RI = 0.41), IBMP-8.2 (RI = 0.36), and IBMP-8.4 (RI = 0.39) exhibited the lowest IgG levels without significant differences among them. Conversely, IBMP-8.3-positive sera produced the highest level (RI = 0.53) but with no significant difference compared to other antigens (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Assessment of chimeric recombinant Trypanosoma cruzi antigen performance using ELISA. A Graphs illustrating the reactivity index for each antigen assessed against a panel comprising 49 positive and 288 negative samples. The cutoff value is set at 1.0, and the shaded area represents the gray zone. The horizontal lines for each result group denote the medians along interquartile range (IQR). B Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) and calculated AUC for each IBMP antigen. C Performance parameters for antigens determined using the assays depicted in panel A. Acc: accuracy; AUC: area under the ROC curve; Sen: sensitivity; Spe: specificity; Tc-Neg: T. cruzi-negative samples; Tc-Pos: T. cruzi-positive samples

Full size image

Considering RI values within the range of 1.0 ± 0.10 as the inconclusive gray zone interval for results, our observations revealed that only seven negative samples (2.4%; 7/288) fell into the inconclusive zone when tested with IBMP-8.2. In contrast, 10 samples (3.5%; 10/288) tested with IBMP-8.1, 15 samples (5.2%; 15/288) with IBMP-8.3, and 9 (3.1%; 9/288) with IBMP-8.4 were classified as inconclusive. Among positive samples, we observed the following number of samples in the gray zone: five (10.2%; 5/49) when tested with IBMP-8.2, six (12.2%; 6/49) each when tested with IBMP-8.1 or IBMP-8.4, and eight when tested with IBMP-8.3. Overall analysis showed that 3.6% (12/337) of samples tested with IBMP-8.2, 4.5% (15/337) of samples with IBMP-8.4, 4.7% (16/337) of samples with IBMP-8.1, and 6.8% (23/337) of samples with IBMP-8.3 had RI values within the gray zone.

The assays employing IBMP antigens exhibited an accuracy of 97% for IBMP-8.2, 96.7% for IBMP-8.4, and 94.4% for IBMP-8.3. However, due to the high number of both false-negative and -positive results in samples assayed with IBMP-8.1, the accuracy of this antigen was significantly lower, standing at 89.9%. Cohen's kappa index indicated substantial agreement (κ = 0.62 for IBMP-8.1 and κ = 0.70 for IBMP-8.3) and almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.88 for IBMP-8.2 and κ = 0.87 for IBMP-8.4) with the results obtained from LCA. Among the chimeric antigens tested, IBMP-8.4 and IBMP-8.2 demonstrated superior performance, as evidenced from the parameters derived from ROC analysis, accuracy, and Cohen's kappa index. Conversely, IBMP-8.1 displayed the lowest performance. Notably, IBMP-8.2 exhibited the highest sensitivity, while IBMP-8.3 and IBMP-8.4 demonstrated superior specificity.

Analysis of positive and negative predictive values

This study also assessed the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) in the context of T. cruzi seropositivity in dogs. To address the varying prevalence of T. cruzi seropositivity in dogs across different regions, we applied a range of hypothetical prevalences (1–100%) to simulate a broad spectrum of epidemiological contexts. Figure 4 delineates the relationship between these predictive values and the hypothetical prevalence scenarios. A notable finding was that a decrease in prevalence corresponded with lower PPVs for all chimeric antigens. Nevertheless, the PPV remained comparatively stable for prevalences exceeding 30%, particularly with antigens IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4. These antigens demonstrated an increase in PPV from 95.8% to 99.8% and from 96.3% to 99.8%, respectively, at a 90% prevalence rate. Conversely, an increased prevalence adversely influenced the NPV, especially for IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.2.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Estimations of positive and negative predictive values across various prevalence scenarios for Trypanosoma cruzi seropositivity in dogs, providing insight into the diagnostic accuracy of tests under different epidemiological conditions. NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value

Full size image

A thorough analysis of the ratio of false positives/negatives to true positives/negatives across a range of hypothetical prevalence scenarios provided a comprehensive perspective on the performance of testing in different epidemiological settings. As depicted in Table 1, the analysis revealed that the probability of false-negative outcomes, relative to true negatives, was consistently low for all diagnostic tests and across various prevalence scenarios. In contrast, the occurrence of false-positive outcomes, compared to true positives, was significantly more frequent at lower prevalence rates (0.1% and 1%). However, this trend was reversed in areas with higher prevalence levels, where the probability of false positives notably decreased at prevalences of 5% and 10%.

Table 1 Probability of false positives relative to true positives and false negatives relative to true negatives across various prevalence levels of Trypanosoma cruzi seropositivity in dogs
Full size table

Discussion

Dogs are important sentinels of T. cruzi transmission in endemic areas and may exhibit clinical signs and clinicopathological abnormalities similar to those seen in humans. The absence of specific anti-T. cruzi antibody detection tests for dogs represents a significant research gap. As a result, studies assessing the seroprevalence of anti-T. cruzi antibodies in dogs frequently rely on in-house or human-adapted tests, leading to potential inaccuracies [47,48,49,50,51]. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of four chimeric recombinant T. cruzi proteins for identifying anti-T. cruzi antibodies in canine serum samples from both endemic and non-endemic regions of Brazil. Our results demonstrated that all IBMP antigens exhibit a high discriminatory ability for identifying positive and negative samples, with AUC values ranging from 90.9 to 97.3%, and the IBMP-8.4 antigen displaying the highest performance. This aligns with our phase I study results, where IBMP-8.4 achieved an AUC value of 100% [36]. Additionally, AUC values for all four proteins exceeded 99% in human sample studies [27, 32,33,34,35, 52].

We observed enhanced diagnostic sensitivity with the IBMP-8.2 antigen compared to other antigens, with both IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 assays demonstrating sensitivities exceeding 80%. These findings contrast those reported in the phase I study, where IBMP-8.3 was more sensitive [36]. In our current analysis, however, both IBMP-8.3 and IBMP-8.1 exhibited the lowest sensitivity values [36]. This divergence in results could be attributed to potential sample misclassification in the phase I study, likely influenced by using in-house or adapted human tests. While two tests had been previously established as a reference standard, the diagnostic performance of the present chimeric antigens could still be influenced by limitations in the precision of these tests. Regarding negative samples, IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 showed high specificity (≥ 98%), consistent with our previous study [36].

The accuracy values were similar for IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4. Due to the high proportion of misdiagnosed samples detected with IBMP-8.1, its accuracy was lower compared with the other antigens. For human diagnosis, on the other hand, IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.4 showed the highest performance [32,33,34,35, 52]; therefore, the new commercial lateral flow immunochromatographic assay TR Chagas (Bio-Manguinhos, Fiocruz-RJ, Brazil) uses these two antigens to detect anti-T. cruzi antibodies in humans with an accuracy of 91.1% [53]. Although TR Chagas has not yet been validated for diagnosing CD in dogs, its performance was recently evaluated, showing a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 91%, according to the ROC curve [54]. The lower performance of IBMP-8.1 for dogs compared to humans might be due to the characteristics of the expressed immunoglobulin VH and VL repertoire in different breeds of dogs compared to those in humans [55]. As such, the use of IBMP-8.1 alone is not recommended for reliable diagnosis in dogs, unless it is used in the latent class model.

This study elucidates the dynamics of predictive values in relation to varying prevalence rates of T. cruzi seropositivity in dogs. Notably, there was a decline in PPVs at lower prevalence rates, while stability was observed at higher prevalences. This pattern aligns with the epidemiological characteristics of CD, indicating enhanced accuracy of the chimeric antigens in endemic settings. Conversely, we noted a reduction in NPVs in high-prevalence scenarios. The global escalation of CD, elevating it to a global health issue [4, 56, 57], underscores the urgency of developing an accurate diagnostic test, applicable across all prevalence rates for efficient CD surveillance. Our findings suggest that the IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 may be promising tools in various epidemiological contexts.

A key limitation of the study was the absence of a validated standard test for preclassifying sera that would be utilized to evaluate the performance of the antigens. To address this limitation, we used a reference array of chimeric T. cruzi antigens based on LCA as a surrogate in the absence of a gold standard. LCA provided precise results in the absence of a gold standard. The present study was also limited by testing samples from restricted geographic areas of Brazil, representing a limited number of circulating discrete typing units [58]. Indeed, the reliance on serum samples from dogs in Brazil means these findings might not be universally reproducible in all geographic locations, considering the heterogeneous distribution of different T. cruzi strains. It is important that this last limitation be addressed in future studies that consider comprehensive samples from other Brazilian states, especially from the northern region, and from different Latin American endemic countries, where uncommon DTUs can be found. Nevertheless, our analysis confirmed the remarkable performance of these chimeric antigens for detecting anti-T. cruzi antibodies in dogs, with IBMP-8.2 and IBMP-8.4 proteins showing higher accuracy. To further improve the performance metrics of the IBMP antigens, our group will conduct additional studies incorporating mixtures of IBMP antigens.

Conclusions

Our study represents a substantial step towards the development of a reliable serological test for detecting anti-T. cruzi antibodies in dogs. Such a test could have applications in both public health (animal health surveillance) and veterinary medicine (CD diagnosis in dogs). In fact, the four chimeric recombinant T. cruzi IBMP antigens (especially IBMP-8.2, IBMP-8.3, and IBMP-8.4) displayed remarkable capability in accurately distinguishing positive from negative samples. This finding is particularly significant because of the current lack of specialized commercial tests for canine CD diagnosis. The use of a LCA approach in our analysis further underscores the reliability of these antigens as effective diagnostic tools. The promising results obtained with these chimeric IBMP antigens may improve surveillance and control strategies in areas where CD is endemic, thereby addressing a key challenge of this neglected tropical disease and ultimately to reducing its impact on affected communities.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the conclusions of this study are included in the manuscript, tables and figures.

Abbreviations

AIC:

Akaike information criteria

AUC:

Area under the curve

BA:

Bahia

BIC:

Bayesian information criteria

CD:

Chagas disease

CI:

Confidence interval

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

IBMP:

Instituto de Biologia Molecular do Paraná

IPTG:

Isopropyl-β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside

IQR:

Interquartile range

LCA:

Latent class analysis

OD:

Optical density

PBS:

Phosphate-buffered saline

PE:

Pernambuco

RI:

Reactivity index

RN:

Rio Grande do Norte

ROC:

Receiver-operating characteristic

STARD:

Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

TBM:

3,3′,5,5′-Tetramethylbenzidine

References

  1. World Health Organization. Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015;90:33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Santos EF, Silva ÂAO, Leony LM, Freitas NEM, Daltro RT, Regis-Silva CG, et al. Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: a nationwide spatiotemporal analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14:e0008445.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lidani KCF, Andrade FA, Bavia L, Damasceno FS, Beltrame MH, Messias-Reason IJ, et al. Chagas disease: from discovery to a worldwide health problem. Front Public Health. 2019;7:166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Manne-Goehler J, Reich MR, Wirtz VJ. Access to care for Chagas disease in the United States: a health systems analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93:108–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Prata A. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of Chagas disease. Lancet Infect Dis. 2001;1:92–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. PAHO. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Chagas disease. Washington DC: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); 2019. https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/49653/9789275120439_eng.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

  7. Buscaglia CA, Di Noia JM. Trypanosoma cruzi clonal diversity and the epidemiology of Chagas’ disease. Microbes Infect. 2003;5:419–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lima AFR, de Jeraldo VLS, Silveira MS, Madi RR, Santana TBK, de Melo CM. Triatomines in dwellings and outbuildings in an endemic area of Chagas disease in northeastern Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2012;45:701–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gürtler RE, Ceballos LA, Ordóñez-Krasnowski P, Lanati LA, Stariolo R, Kitron U. Strong host-feeding preferences of the vector Triatoma infestans modified by vector density: implications for the epidemiology of Chagas disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3:e447.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Barr SC. Canine Chagas’ disease (American trypanosomiasis) in North America. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2009;39:1055–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rodríguez-Morales O, Ballinas-Verdugo MA, Alejandre-Aguilar R, Reyes PA, Arce-Fonseca M. Trypanosoma cruzi connatal transmission in dogs with Chagas disease: experimental case report. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1365–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gürtler RE, Cecere MC, Lauricella MA, Cardinal MV, Kitron U, Cohen JE. Domestic dogs and cats as sources of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in rural northwestern Argentina. Parasitology. 2007;134:69–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gürtler RE, Cecere MC, Lauricella MA, Petersen RM, Chuit R, Segura EL, et al. Incidence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection among children following domestic reinfestation after insecticide spraying in rural northwestern Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;73:95–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tenney TD, Curtis-Robles R, Snowden KF, Hamer SA. Shelter dogs as sentinels for Trypanosoma cruzi transmission across Texas. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20:1323–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Castillo-Neyra R, Chou Chu L, Quispe-Machaca V, Ancca-Juarez J, Malaga Chavez FS, Bastos Mazuelos M, et al. The potential of canine sentinels for reemerging Trypanosoma cruzi transmission. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120:349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gürtler RE, Chuit R, Cécere MC, Castañera MB, Cohen JE, Segura EL. Household prevalence of seropositivity for Trypanosoma cruzi in three rural villages in northwest Argentina: environmental, demographic, and entomologic associations. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59:741–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gürtler RE, Kitron U, Cecere MC, Segura EL, Cohen JE. Sustainable vector control and management of Chagas disease in the Gran Chaco. Argentina Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:16194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gürtler RE, Cardinal MV. Reservoir host competence and the role of domestic and commensal hosts in the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi. Acta Trop. 2015;151:32–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Enriquez GFF, Bua J, Orozco MMM, Wirth S, Schijman AGG, Gürtler REE, et al. High levels of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA determined by qPCR and infectiousness to Triatoma infestans support dogs and cats are major sources of parasites for domestic transmission. Infect Genet Evol. 2014;25:36–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Durães-Oliveira J, Palma-Marques J, Moreno C, Rodrigues A, Monteiro M, Alexandre-Pires G, et al. Chagas disease: a silent threat for dogs and humans. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25:3840.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Andrade ZA. The canine model of Chagas’ disease. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1984;79:77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andrade ZA, Andrade SG. Pathology of experimental Chagas disease in dogs. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1980;75:77–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tafuri WL, de Lana M, Chiari E, Caliari MV, Bambirra EA, Rios-Leite VH, et al. O cão como modelo experimental para o estudo da história natural da doença de Chagas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1988;21:77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Lana M, Chiari E, Tafuri WL. Experimental Chagas’ disease in dogs. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1992;87:59–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Freitas NEM, Habib FL, Santos EF, Silva ÂAO, Fontes ND, Leony LM, et al. Technological advances in the serological diagnosis of Chagas disease in dogs and cats: a systematic review. Parasit Vectors. 2022;15:343.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Santos FLN, Celedon PAF, Zanchin NIT, Brasil TAC, Foti L, Souza WV, et al. Performance assessment of four chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens based on antigen-antibody detection for diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0161100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Santos FLN, Celedon PAF, Zanchin NIT, Leitolis A, Crestani S, Foti L, et al. Performance assessment of a Trypanosoma cruzi chimeric antigen in multiplex liquid microarray assays. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:2934–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Santos FLN, Campos ACP, Amorim LDAF, Silva ED, Zanchin NIT, Celedon PAF, et al. Highly accurate chimeric proteins for the serological diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease: a latent class analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99:1174–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Celedon PAF, Leony LM, Oliveira UD, Freitas NEM, Silva ÂAO, Daltro RT, et al. Stability assessment of four chimeric proteins for human Chagas disease immunodiagnosis. Biosensors. 2021;11:289.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Daltro RT, Leony LM, Freitas NEM, Silva ÂAO, Santos EF, Del-Rei RP, et al. Cross-reactivity using chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens: diagnostic performance in settings co-endemic for Chagas disease and American cutaneous or visceral leishmaniasis. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57:e00762–e819.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Santos EF, Leony LM, Silva ÂAO, Daltro RT, Freitas NEM, Vasconcelos LCM, et al. Assessment of Liaison XL Murex Chagas diagnostic performance in blood screening for Chagas disease using a reference array of chimeric antigens. Transfusion. 2021;61:2701–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Silva ED, Silva ÂAO, Santos EF, Leony LM, Freitas NEM, Daltro RT, et al. Development of a new lateral flow assay based on IBMP-8.1. and IBMP-8.4 chimeric antigens to diagnose Chagas disease. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1803515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Cordeiro TAR, Martins HR, Franco DL, Santos FLN, Celedon PAF, Cantuária VL, et al. Impedimetric immunosensor for rapid and simultaneous detection of Chagas and visceral leishmaniasis for point of care diagnosis. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020;169:112573.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Del-Rei RP, Leony LM, Celedon PAF, Zanchin NIT, Reis MG, Gomes YM, et al. Detection of anti-Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies by chimeric antigens in chronic Chagas disease-individuals from endemic South American countries. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0215623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Dopico E, Del-Rei RP, Espinoza B, Ubillos I, Zanchin NIT, Sulleiro E, et al. Immune reactivity to Trypanosoma cruzi chimeric proteins for Chagas disease diagnosis in immigrants living in a non-endemic setting. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19:251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Leony LM, Freitas NEM, Del-Rei RP, Carneiro CM, Reis AB, Jansen AM, et al. Performance of recombinant chimeric proteins in the serological diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13:e0007545.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Santos F, Magalhães-Junior JT, de Carneiro IO, Santos FLN, Silva ÂAO, Novais JMCB, et al. Eco-epidemiology of vectorial Trypanosoma cruzi transmission in a region of Northeast Brazil. Acta Trop. 2022;225:106184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Costa TF, Rocha AVVO, Miranda LM, Lima LFS, Santos FLN, Silva ÂAO, et al. Seroprevalence and detection of Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs living in a non-endemic area for Chagas disease in the legal Amazon region, Brazil. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2021;26:100648.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Santos EF, Silva ÂAO, Freitas NEM, Almeida MCC, Araújo FLV, Celedon PAF, et al. Performance of chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens in serological screening for Chagas disease in blood banks. Front Med. 2022;9:852864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Santos EF, Daltro RT, Regis-Silva CG, Pavan TBS, de Oliveira FA, Silva ÂM, et al. Assessment of cross-reactivity of chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens with Crithidia sp. LVH-60A: implications for accurate diagnostics. Diagnostics. 2023;13:3470.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Soares NM, Barreto NMPV, Farias MMB, Oliveira CL, Araújo WAC, Souza JN, et al. Seroepidemiological survey of chronic Chagas disease in a rural community in Southern Bahia, Brazil, using recombinant chimeric antigens. Pathogens. 2023;12:1222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Dean AG, Sullivan KM, Soe MM, Mir RA. OpenEpi: Open-Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2013. www.OpenEpi.com.

  43. Linda M, Collins STL. Latent class and latent transition analysis with applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: John Wiley Sons; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240:1285–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ. 2002;324:669–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Longoni SS, López-Cespedes A, Sánchez-Moreno M, Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Sauri-Arceo CH, Rodríguez-Vivas RI, et al. Detection of different Leishmania spp. and Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies in cats from the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) using an iron superoxide dismutase excreted as antigen. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;35:469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Enriquez GF, Cardinal MV, Orozco MM, Schijman AG, Gürtler RE. Detection of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in naturally infected dogs and cats using serological, parasitological and molecular methods. Acta Trop. 2013;126:211–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. González CR, Reyes C, Canals A, Parra A, Muñoz X, Rodríguez K. An entomological and seroepidemiological study of the vectorial-transmission risk of Chagas disease in the coast of northern Chile. Med Vet Entomol. 2015;29:387–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Saldaña A, Calzada JE, Pineda V, Perea M, Rigg C, González K, et al. Risk factors associated with Trypanosoma cruzi exposure in domestic dogs from a rural community in Panama. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110:936–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Zecca IB, Hodo CL, Slack S, Auckland L, Rodgers S, Killets KC, et al. Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection and associated histologic findings in domestic cats (Felis catus). Vet Parasitol. 2020;278:109014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Santos FLN, Celedon PA, Zanchin NI, Souza WV, Silva ED, Foti L, et al. Accuracy of chimeric proteins in the serological diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease - a Phase II study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0005433.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Iturra JAD, Leony LM, Medeiros FAC, de Filho JAS, da Siriano LR, do Tavares SBN, et al. A multicenter comparative study of the performance of four rapid immunochromatographic tests for the detection of anti-Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies in Brazil. Front Med. 2023;10:1031455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rodrigues ES, Santos GQ, Silva MV, Barros JHS, Bernardo AR, Diniz RL, et al. Chagas immunochromatographic rapid test in the serological diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in wild and domestic canids. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:835383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Steiniger SCJ, Dunkle WE, Bammert GF, Wilson TL, Krishnan A, Dunham SA, et al. Fundamental characteristics of the expressed immunoglobulin VH and VL repertoire in different canine breeds in comparison with those of humans and mice. Mol Immunol. 2014;59:71–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmunis GA, Yadon ZE. Chagas disease: a Latin American health problem becoming a world health problem. Acta Trop. 2010;115:14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Conners EE, Vinetz JM, Weeks JR, Brouwer KC. A global systematic review of Chagas disease prevalence among migrants. Acta Trop. 2016;156:68–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Dumonteil E, Elmayan A, Majeau A, Tu W, Duhon B, Marx P, et al. Genetic diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi parasites infecting dogs in southern Louisiana sheds light on parasite transmission cycles and serological diagnostic performance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14:e0008932.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Dr. Adriana Lanfredi and her team at FIOCRUZ-BA for generously offering access to their electron microscopy facility during the renovation of our laboratory. We also acknowledge the support of the FIOCRUZ-PR program and the Platform for Protein Purification and Characterization (RPT-15A) for their invaluable technical assistance.

Funding

This study was funded by several Brazilian institutions: Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement-Brazil (CAPES; Grant Number Finance Code 001, 88887.637758/2021-00, and 88887.805768/2023-00), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; 128257/2021-0), Inova Fiocruz/VPPCB (Grant Number VPPCB-008-FIO-18-2-20), Foundation for Research Support of the State of Bahia (FAPESB; Grant Numbers BOL0298/2020 and BOL0543/2020). Nilson I. T. Zanchin and Fred L. N. Santos are CNPq research fellows (Grant Numbers 304167/2019-3 and 306448/2023-8, respectively). The funding bodies played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Public Health Laboratory, Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, Brazil

    Natália Dantas Fontes, Fernanda Lopes Habib, Leonardo Maia Leony, Natália Erdens Maron Freitas, Ângelo Antônio Oliveira Silva & Fred Luciano Neves Santos

  2. Interdisciplinary Research Group in Biotechnology and Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases (GRUPIBE), Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ-BA), Salvador, Brazil

    Leonardo Maia Leony, Natália Erdens Maron Freitas, Ângelo Antônio Oliveira Silva & Fred Luciano Neves Santos

  3. Laboratory of Immunoparasitology, Department of Immunology, Aggeu Magalhães Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Brazil

    Filipe Dantas-Torres & Kamila Gaudêncio da Silva Sales

  4. Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analysis, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil

    Antônia Cláudia Jácome da Câmara

  5. Postgraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil

    Antônia Cláudia Jácome da Câmara & Vicente Toscano de Araújo-Neto

  6. Department of Statistics, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Leila Denise Alves Ferreira Amorim

  7. Molecular Biology of Trypanosomatids Laboratory, Carlos Chagas Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Curitiba, Brazil

    Paola Alejandra Fiorani Celedon

  8. Laboratory of Structural Biology & Protein Engineering, Carlos Chagas Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Curitiba, Brazil

    Nilson Ivo Tonin Zanchin

  9. Integrated Translational Program in Chagas disease from Fiocruz – Fio-Chagas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Nilson Ivo Tonin Zanchin & Fred Luciano Neves Santos

Authors
  1. Natália Dantas Fontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernanda Lopes Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonardo Maia Leony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natália Erdens Maron Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ângelo Antônio Oliveira Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Filipe Dantas-Torres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kamila Gaudêncio da Silva Sales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antônia Cláudia Jácome da Câmara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Vicente Toscano de Araújo-Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Leila Denise Alves Ferreira Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Paola Alejandra Fiorani Celedon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nilson Ivo Tonin Zanchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Fred Luciano Neves Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to this work. FLNS, PAFC, and NITZ conceptualized the experimental design. NITZ identified Trypanosoma cruzi epitopes and developed the chimeric recombinant IBMP proteins. PAFC was responsible for expression and purification of these proteins. FDT and KGSS collected and characterized samples from Pernambuco, while ACJC and VTAN did the same for Rio Grande do Norte. NDF and FLH executed the ELISA experiments. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation were carried out by NDF, FLH, LML, NEMF, and AAOS, with LDAFA conducting the latent class analysis. NDF, FLH, and FLNS drafted the manuscript, with FLNS also creating figures, providing laboratory resources, securing funding, and supervising the project. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred Luciano Neves Santos.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study obtained ethical approval from the Ethics Committee for the Use of Animals at the Instituto Gonçalo Moniz—Fiocruz/BA, Salvador, Bahia-Brazil (protocol number 002/2017).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest in this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fontes, N.D., Habib, F.L., Leony, L.M. et al. Evaluation of chimeric recombinant antigens for the serodiagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs: a promising tool for Chagas disease surveillance. Parasites Vectors 17, 305 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06376-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06376-5

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us