Brucellosis In Livestock Research Articles

Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife.

To describe and discuss the merits of various direct and indirect methods applied in vitro (mainly on blood or milk) or in vivo (allergic test) for the diagnosis of brucellosis in animals. The recent literature on brucellosis diagnostic tests was reviewed. These diagnostic tests are applied with different goals, such as national screening, confirmatory diagnosis, certification, and international trade. The validation of such diagnostic tests is still an issue, particularly in wildlife. The choice of the testing strategy depends on the prevailing brucellosis epidemiological situation and the goal of testing. Measuring the kinetics of antibody production after Brucella spp. infection is essential for analyzing serological results correctly and may help to predict abortion. Indirect ELISAs help to discriminate 1) between false positive serological reactions and true brucellosis and 2) between vaccination and infection. Biotyping of Brucella spp. provides valuable epidemiological information that allows tracing an infection back to the sources in instances where several biotypes of a given Brucella species are circulating. Polymerase chain reaction and new molecular methods are likely to be used as routine typing and fingerprinting methods in the coming years. The diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife is complex and serological results need to be carefully analyzed. The B. abortus S19 and B. melitensis Rev. 1 vaccines are the cornerstones of control programs in cattle and small ruminants, respectively. There is no vaccine available for pigs or for wildlife. In the absence of a human brucellosis vaccine, prevention of human brucellosis depends on the control of the disease in animals.

THE ROLE OF LIVESTOCK KEEPING IN HUMAN BRUCELLOSIS TRENDS IN LIVESTOCK KEEPING COMMUNITIES IN TANZANIA

A cross-sectional survey was carried out in Karatu and Ngorongoro districts in Arusha region and Babati, Hanang and Mbulu districts in Manyara region involving 20 agro-pastoral and 9 pastoral villages, to establish the magnitude of human brucellosis in relation to livestock brucellosis. A multistage random sampling was used to select villages, sub-village administrative units, ten cell leadership units and animal keeping households. A total of 460 humans from 90 families (19 pastoral and 71 agro-pastoral families) and 2723 domestic ruminants from 90 livestock households were sampled and bled to obtain serum samples for analysis. A competitive enzyme linked-immunosorbent assay (c-ELISA) was used to analyse these samples to detect brucella circulating antibodies. The overall livestock seroprevalence was 5.7% with 32.2% of livestock households being seropositive whereas, human seropositivity was 8.3% with 28% family households being seropositive. The highest proportion of seropositive families was observed in Ngorongoro district (46%) and the lowest in Babati district with no seropositive family household. Family members in seropositive livestock households were 3.3 (OR) times more likely to be seropositive than those with seronegative livestock households. However; 25% of seronegative family households had seropositive livestock households and 48% seropositive family households had seronegative livestock households.Therefore, Brucella infection is widespread in the human populations and their livestock in the northern Tanzania and thus humans may acquire infection from their own animals or from other sources thus prompted public health awareness creation in such communities.

Spatial distribution and risk factors of Brucellosis in Iberian wild ungulates

BackgroundThe role of wildlife as a brucellosis reservoir for humans and domestic livestock remains to be properly established. The aim of this work was to determine the aetiology, apparent prevalence, spatial distribution and risk factors for brucellosis transmission in several Iberian wild ungulates.MethodsA multi-species indirect immunosorbent assay (iELISA) using Brucella S-LPS antigen was developed. In several regions having brucellosis in livestock, individual serum samples were taken between 1999 and 2009 from 2,579 wild bovids, 6,448 wild cervids and4,454 Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), and tested to assess brucellosis apparent prevalence. Strains isolated from wild boar were characterized to identify the presence of markers shared with the strains isolated from domestic pigs.ResultsMean apparent prevalence below 0.5% was identified in chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica), Iberian wild goat (Capra pyrenaica), and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallow deer (Dama dama), mouflon (Ovis aries) and Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) tested were seronegative. Only one red deer and one Iberian wild goat resulted positive in culture, isolating B. abortus biovar 1 and B. melitensis biovar 1, respectively. Apparent prevalence in wild boar ranged from 25% to 46% in the different regions studied, with the highest figures detected in South-Central Spain. The probability of wild boar being positive in the iELISA was also affected by age, age-by-sex interaction, sampling month, and the density of outdoor domestic pigs. A total of 104 bacterial isolates were obtained from wild boar, being all identified as B. suis biovar 2. DNA polymorphisms were similar to those found in domestic pigs.ConclusionsIn conclusion, brucellosis in wild boar is widespread in the Iberian Peninsula, thus representing an important threat for domestic pigs. By contrast, wild ruminants were not identified as a significant brucellosis reservoir for livestock.

IS711-based real-time PCR assay as a tool for detection of Brucellaspp. in wild boars and comparison with bacterial isolation and serology

BackgroundControl of brucellosis in livestock, wildlife and humans depends on the reliability of the methods used for detection and identification of bacteria. In the present study, we describe the evaluation of the recently established real-time PCR assay based on the Brucella-specific insertion sequence IS711 with blood samples from 199 wild boars (first group of animals) and tissue samples from 53 wild boars (second group of animals) collected in Switzerland. Results from IS711 real-time PCR were compared to those obtained by bacterial isolation, Rose Bengal Test (RBT), competitive ELISA (c-ELISA) and indirect ELISA (i-ELISA).ResultsIn the first group of animals, IS711 real-time PCR detected infection in 11.1% (16/144) of wild boars that were serologically negative. Serological tests showed different sensitivities [RBT 15.6%, c-ELISA 7.5% and i-ELISA 5.5%] and only 2% of blood samples were positive with all three tests, which makes interpretation of the serological results very difficult. Regarding the second group of animals, the IS711 real-time PCR detected infection in 26% of animals, while Brucella spp. could be isolated from tissues of only 9.4% of the animals.ConclusionThe results presented here indicate that IS711 real-time PCR assay is a specific and sensitive tool for detection of Brucella spp. infections in wild boars. For this reason, we propose the employment of IS711 real-time PCR as a complementary tool in brucellosis screening programs and for confirmation of diagnosis in doubtful cases.

Simple and rapid field tests for brucellosis in livestock

Four simple and rapid field tests for the serodiagnosis of brucellosis in cattle, goat, sheep and swine were developed. The performance of the assays was investigated using serum samples collected in Portugal from animals originating from herds with a defined sanitary status with respect to the presence of brucellosis. The sensitivity calculated for the bovine, caprine, ovine and swine Brucella lateral flow assays based on results obtained for samples collected from animals with culture confirmed brucellosis was 90%, 100%, 90% and 73%, respectively. None of the samples from animals from herds free of brucellosis reacted in the flow assays indicating a high specificity. However, as expected, some degree of reactivity was observed when testing selected serum samples that reacted non-specific in reference tests for brucellosis.

Seroprevalences and local variation of human and livestock brucellosis in two villages in Gharbia Governorate, Egypt

This study aimed at assessing the epidemiology of brucellosis among both human and livestock populations in an endemic area in Egypt. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two villages, where 616 inhabitants (aged 3-75 years) and 350 livestock of 97 households were enrolled. Sera were tested for Brucella spp. antibodies by tube agglutination test for both populations. Proportions of seropositive sera were 0.0 and 1.7% among the inhabitants, and 0.0 and 16% among livestock of villages I and II, respectively. Calculated seroprevalences considering the clustering of brucellosis within households were 0.03 for people and 5.2 for livestock in village II. The village variable (P=0.07) and keeping sheep in the household (P=0.01) were significant risk factors for human brucellosis, whereas only the village was significant for livestock (P<0.001). Sheep showed the highest seropositive proportions of brucellosis among livestock. No association could be detected between human and livestock brucellosis. In conclusion, we found local variation of seroprevalences of brucellosis among human and livestock in the two surveyed villages. Further epidemiological studies have to be conducted in randomly selected governorates, not only to confirm the low seroprevelance of human brucellosis, but also to assess the risk factors of livestock infection for terms of prophylaxis.

Adverse events in humans associated with accidental exposure to the livestock brucellosis vaccine RB51

Brucella abortus strain RB51 vaccine, is an attenuated live bacterial vaccine that was licensed conditionally by the Center for Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, on 23 February 1996, for vaccination of cattle in the United States. Accidental human inoculations can occur during vaccination of cattle, and previous live Brucella vaccines designed for cattle have been known to cause brucellosis in humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established passive surveillance for accidental inoculation with the RB51 vaccine in the United States to determine if this veterinary vaccine is associated with human disease, to describe the circumstances of accidental inoculation, to evaluate the potential efficacy of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis, and to develop recommendations for post-exposure management following exposure to RB51. Reports were received from 26 individuals. Accidental exposure to RB51 occurred by needle stick injury in 21 people (81%), conjunctival spray exposure in four (15%), and spray exposure of an open wound in one (4%) individual. At least one systemic symptom was reported in 19 (73%) people, including three (12%) who reported persistent local reactions with systemic involvement. One case required surgery, and B. abortus strain RB51 was isolated from the wound of that individual. Seven cases reported no adverse event associated with accidental exposure. Nine cases reported previous exposure to Brucella vaccines, including one case who also reported a previous diagnosis of brucellosis following exposure to S19 vaccine. Accidental needle stick injuries and conjunctival or open wound exposures of humans with the RB51 vaccine are associated with both local and systemic adverse events in the United States that are consistent with brucellosis; however, it remains undetermined if strain RB51 vaccine can cause systemic brucellosis in humans. Early culture attempts on those exposed and developing disease in the future and serologic diagnostic assays for anti-RB-51 antibodies are needed to define if these adverse events are due to RB51 and to define appropriate prophylaxis regimens.

Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and control/eradication of brucellosis in India

In India, brucellosis was first recognised in 1942 and is now endemic throughout the country. The disease is reported in cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs and humans. B. abortus biotype-1 in cattle and buffaloes and B. melitensis biotype-1 in sheep, goats and man are the predominant infective biotypes. The long-term serological studies have indicated that 5% of cattle and 3% of buffaloes are infected with brucellosis. Economic losses due to brucellosis in livestock are considerable in an agrarian country like India. There is no organised and effective brucellosis control programme in the country. With the indigenous development of serum and milk based ELISA kits, the population survey of the disease has been undertaken on a large scale in several states and plans for the control of the disease through calf-hood vaccination are being worked out. An innovative approach—Bovine Brucellosis Progressive Control Programme (BBPCP) is targeted to overcome the basic problems of ban on cow slaughter, distress sale of animals following the positive serological diagnosis of brucellosis and absence of a disease control strategy. The work plan for the implementation of BBPCP is presented.

Brucellosis in Livestock

Brucellosis in Livestock

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BACTERIAL HYPERSENSITIVITY IN HUMAN BRUCELLOSIS: STUDIES ON INFECTION DUE TO STRAIN 19 BRUCELLA ABORTUS

Article1 November 1957THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BACTERIAL HYPERSENSITIVITY IN HUMAN BRUCELLOSIS: STUDIES ON INFECTION DUE TO STRAIN 19 BRUCELLA ABORTUSWESLEY W. SPINK, M.D., F.A.C.P.WESLEY W. SPINK, M.D., F.A.C.P.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-47-5-861 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptAlthough the host-parasite relationship in many infectious diseases has been intensively studied in man, it is surprising how little is known about the fundamental mechanisms that are responsible for the resultant human illness. In conjunction with studies on the host-parasite factors in brucellosis, my associates and I have sought an answer to the question, What basic features contribute to the illness of a patient with this disease?The purpose of this report is to point out the significance of bacterial hypersensitivity in the genesis of the illness caused by brucella organisms. Such a thesis has been proposed by others, not...Bibliography1. Gilman HL: Undulant fever caused by Brucella abortus, strain 19, Cornell Vet. 34: 193, 1944. Google Scholar2. SpinkThompson WWH: Human brucellosis caused by Brucella abortus, strain 19, J. A. M. A. 153: 1162, 1953. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Bardenwerper HW: Human sickness caused by Brucella abortus, strain 19, J. A. M. A. 155: 970, 1954. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. SaduskBrowneBorn JFASJL: Human brucellosis resulting from Brucella abortus strain 19 vaccine, J. A. M. A. 164: 1325, 1957. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Spink WW: The nature of brucellosis, 1956, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p. 185. Google Scholar6. Braude AI: Studies in the pathology and pathogenesis of experimental brucellosis. II. The formation of the hepatic granuloma and its evolution, J. Infect. Dis. 89: 87, 1951. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Arias J: Contribucion al conocimiento de la pathologia de la brucelosis, An. Fac. med., Lima 34: 429, 1951. CrossrefGoogle Scholar8. Burnet E: Des reinoculations dans l'infection a M. melitensis, en particulier d'apres la maladie experimentale du cobaye, Arch. Inst. Pasteur de Tunis 14: 62, 1925. Google Scholar9. SpinkBraudeCastanedaGoytia WWAIMRRS: Aureomycin therapy in human brucellosis due to Brucella melitensis , J. A. M. A. 138: 1145, 1948. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. SpinkAnderson WWD: Experimental studies on the significance of endotoxin in the pathogenesis of brucellosis, J. Clin. Investigation 33: 540, 1954. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Spink WW: The significance of endotoxin in brucellosis: experimental and clinical studies, Tr. A. Am. Physicians 67: 283, 1954. MedlineGoogle Scholar12. Abernathy R: Sensitivity of human subjects to Brucella endotoxin and its significance in the pathogenesis of brucellosis, J. Lab. and Clin. Med. 48: 780, 1956. Google Scholar13. PiroskyMolinelli IEA: Estudios sobre alergia brucelosa. I. Empleo del complejo glucidolipido de brucella en la investigacion alergica del hombre, Revist. de Med. y Cienc. afines, Buenos Aires 6: 850, 1944. Google Scholar14. Hall WH: The bactericidal action of human blood against Brucella and its specific inhibition, in Third Inter-American Congress on Brucellosis, Washington, D. C., Pan American Sanitary Bureau, 1950, p. 87. Google Scholar15. AbernathySpink RSWW: Protection against Brucella with heterologous endotoxins, J. Clin. Investigation 35: 687, 1956. Google Scholar16. HalbergSpinkBittner FWWJJ: Protection by aldosterone and 11,17-oxycorticoids against effects of Brucella somatic antigen in adrenalectomized mice, Endocrinology 59: 380, 1956. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. AbernathyHalbergSpink RSFWW: Studies on the mechanism of chlorpromazine protection against Brucella endotoxin in mice, J. Lab. and Clin. Med. 49: 708, 1957. MedlineGoogle Scholar18. SpinkHall WWWH: The influence of cortisone and adrenocorticotrophic hormone on brucellosis. II. Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) in acute and chronic human brucellosis, J. Clin. Investigation 31: 958, 1952. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Minneapolis, Minnesota*Presented at the Thirty-eighth Annual Session of The American College of Physicians, Boston, Massachusetts, April 11, 1957.From the Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Hospitals and Medical School.Requests for reprints should be addressed to Wesley W. Spink, M.D., Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis 14, Minnesota. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byVeterinary PharmaceuticalsNeedlestick Injuries in Agriculture Workers and Prevention ProgramsBrucellosisBrucellosisAdverse events in humans associated with accidental exposure to the livestock brucellosis vaccine RB51BrucellosisBrucellosisBrucelosis y derrame pleural: Revisión de la literaturaBrucellosisAllergyBRUCELLOSIS AS A HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD IN AUSTRALIAKrankheiten durch BrucellenKrankheiten durch BrucellenHOST-PARASITE RELATIONSHIP IN BRUCELLOSISSection E. Diseases of dairy cattleADRENOCORTICAL STEROIDS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SELECTED PATIENTS WITH INFECTIOUS DISEASES*WESLEY W. SPINK, M.D., F.A.C.P. 1 November 1957Volume 47, Issue 5Page: 861-874KeywordsAntigensBrucellaBrucellosisHospital medicineHypersensitivityInfectious diseases Issue Published: 1 November 1957 PDF downloadLoading ...