Abstract

Brucella spp. are Gram-negative, non-motile, non-spore-forming, slow-growing, facultative intracellular bacteria causing brucellosis. Brucellosis is an endemic of specific geographic areas and, although underreported, represents the most common zoonotic infection, with an annual global incidence of 500,000 cases among humans. Humans represent an occasional host where the infection is mainly caused by B. melitensis, which is the most virulent; B. abortus; B. suis; and B. canis. A microbiological analysis is crucial to identifying human cases because clinical symptoms of human brucellosis are variable and aspecific. The laboratory diagnosis is based on three different microbiological approaches: (i) direct diagnosis by culture, (ii) indirect diagnosis by serological tests, and (iii) direct rapid diagnosis by molecular PCR-based methods. Despite the established experience with serological tests and highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), a culture is still considered the “gold standard” in the laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis due to its clinical and epidemiological relevance. Moreover, the automated BC systems now available have increased the sensitivity of BCs and shortened the time to detection of Brucella species. The main limitations of serological tests are the lack of common interpretative criteria, the suboptimal specificity due to interspecies cross-reactivity, and the low sensitivity during the early stage of disease. Despite that, serological tests remain the main diagnostic tool, especially in endemic areas because they are inexpensive, user friendly, and have high negative predictive value. Promising serological tests based on new synthetic antigens have been recently developed together with novel point-of-care tests without the need for dedicated equipment and expertise. NAATs are rapid tests that can help diagnose brucellosis in a few hours with high sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, the interpretation of NAAT-positive results requires attention because it may not necessarily indicate an active infection but rather a low bacterial inoculum, DNA from dead bacteria, or a patient that has recovered. Refined NAATs should be developed, and their performances should be compared with those of commercial and home-made molecular tests before being commercialized for the diagnosis of brucellosis. Here, we review and report the most common and updated microbiological diagnostic methods currently available for the laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis.

Highlights

  • Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

  • The conventional nomenclature has been maintained because of clinical, practical, and epidemiological reasons, with different biovars being species specific, such as B. abortus being closely associated with cattle, B. melitensis being closely associated with small ruminants, B. suis being closely associated with swine, and

  • There are not validated commercial or home-made nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) that can guarantee a high reproducibility of results; direct methods by culture and indirect methods by serological tests remain the main tools for the laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis and the methods of choice for the follow-up of infections by Brucella spp

Read more

Summary

Laboratory Diagnosis of Brucella Infection

Brucella spp. are small (0.5–0.7 by 0.6–1.5 μm), non-motile, non-spore-forming, slowgrowing, facultative intracellular Gram-negative coccobacilli belonging to the Brucellaceae family along with the Mycoplana and Ochrobactrum spp. [1,2]. Brucellosis is a zoonotic infection due to the ability of these species to infect nonpreferential hosts, including humans [3]. It can affect any organ and body site, occurring in animals and humans, as an occasional host, with very rare cases of human-to-human transmission [5]. The fast and precise diagnosis of human brucellosis is essential for the delivery of a prompt and adequate antimicrobial therapy. It supports public health services by identifying exposure to sick animals and avoiding the consumption of contaminated food.

Culture
Serological Tests
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call