Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Six PCR Methods Using Peripheral Blood for Detection of Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis

Open access
Lachaud, Laurence, Marchergui-Hammami, Sarah, Chabbert, Elisabeth, Dereure, Jacques, Dedet, Jean Pierre, Bastien, Patrick·2002·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to compare the sensitivities and reliabilities of different PCR methods for the diagnosis and epidemiological study of canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) using dog blood. We chose to work with peripheral blood, as this type of sampling is noninvasive, straightforward, and easy to repeat. Six PCR methods were compared: three primer pairs target genomic DNA, and the other three target kinetoplast (mitochondrial) DNA. Sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and ease of interpretation without hybridization were evaluated for each method. The assessment was first performed using artificial samples. All methods could detect less than one parasite per reaction tube. However, the sensitivities varied among the different methods by a factor of 500 on purified cultivated parasites and by a factor of 10,000 on seeded dog blood samples (i.e., from 10 to 10−3 parasite per ml of blood for the latter). Only four methods were found sufficiently reliable for the diagnosis of CVL. They were tested on 37 dogs living in an area of endemicity and grouped according to clinical status and specific serology. Only the two methods targeting kinetoplast DNA (K13A-K13B and RV1-RV2) could detect the parasite in 100% of symptomatic infected dogs. Similarly, all seropositive dogs were found PCR positive by these methods versus 62% by the genomic-DNA-based methods. Finally, these kinetoplast-based methods proved clearly superior to the others in the detection of Leishmania in asymptomatic dogs. Our data allow the discussion of the advantages and drawbacks of highly sensitive versus moderately sensitive PCR methods in diagnosis and prevalence studies of CVL.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.40.1.210-215.2002

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Lachaud, L., Marchergui-Hammami, S., Chabbert, E., Dereure, J., Dedet, J. P., & Bastien, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2002-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
210-215
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2147324529
Cited by
384
References
23
FWCI
6.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Six PCR Methods Using Peripheral Blood for Detection of Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.40.1.210-215.2002
The paper
Lachaud, L., Marchergui-Hammami, S., Chabbert, E., Dereure, J., Dedet, J. P., & Bastien, P. (2002). Comparison of Six PCR Methods Using Peripheral Blood for Detection of Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.40.1.210-215.2002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.