Elsevier

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Volume 151, 1 March 2018, Pages 57-72
Preventive Veterinary Medicine

A systematic review of current immunological tests for the diagnosis of cattle brucellosis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.01.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Brucellosis is a worldwide extended zoonosis with a heavy economic and public health impact. Cattle, sheep and goats are infected by smooth Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis, and represent a common source of the human disease. Brucellosis diagnosis in these animals is largely based on detection of a specific immunoresponse. We review here the immunological tests used for the diagnosis of cattle brucellosis. First, we discuss how the diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) and specificity (DSp), balance should be adjusted for brucellosis diagnosis, and the difficulties that brucellosis tests specifically present for the estimation of DSe/DSp in frequentistic (gold standard) and Bayesian analyses. Then, we present a systematic review (PubMed, GoogleScholar and CABdirect) of works (154 out of 991; years 1960–August 2017) identified (by title and Abstract content) as DSe and DSp studies of smooth lipopolysaccharide, O-polysaccharide-core, native hapten and protein diagnostic tests. We summarize data of gold standard studies (n = 23) complying with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with regards to test methodology and definition of the animals studied (infected and S19 or RB51 vaccinated cattle, and Brucella-free cattle affected or not by false positive serological reactions). We also discuss some studies (smooth lipopolysaccharide tests, protein antibody and delayed type hypersensitivity [skin] tests) that do not meet the criteria and yet fill some of the gaps in information. We review Bayesian studies (n = 5) and report that in most cases priors and assumptions on conditional dependence/independence are not coherent with the variable serological picture of the disease in different epidemiological scenarios and the bases (antigen, isotype and immunoglobulin properties involved) of brucellosis tests, practical experience and the results of gold standard studies. We conclude that very useful lipopolysaccharide (buffered plate antigen and indirect ELISA) and native hapten polysaccharide and soluble protein tests exist, provided they are applied taking into account the means available and the epidemiological contexts of this disease: i) mass vaccination; ii) elimination based on vaccination combined with test-and-slaughter; and iii) surveillance and existence of false positive serological reactions. We also conclude that the insistence in recent literature on the lack of usefulness of all smooth lipopolysaccharide or native hapten polysaccharide tests in areas where S19 vaccination is implemented is a misinterpretation that overlooks scientific and practical evidence.

Introduction

Bacteria of the genus Brucella cause brucellosis, a zoonosis of worldwide impact inducing abortions and infertility in a variety of wild life forms and domestic livestock, the latter being the most common source of human brucellosis, a grave and debilitating disease (Zinsstag et al., 2011). Cattle and small ruminants are respectively the preferential hosts of B. abortus and B. melitensis, but the latter species also infects cattle in mixed breeding systems (Corbel, 1997; Verger, 1985) and, although rarely, cattle can also be infected by some B. suis biovars (Corbel, 1997; Ewalt et al., 1997; Musser et al., 2013; Szulowski et al., 2013; Tae et al., 2012). Diagnosis and vaccination are essential for control and eventual elimination and surveillance of this disease.

The diagnosis of brucellosis in cattle is based on bacteriological and immunological tests, which include DTH3 and serological tests. In infected animals, DTH is elicited by protein antigens, and antibodies recognize the different sections of the S-LPS, mostly its O-polysaccharide or OPS, the cognate NH polysaccharide or proteins (Ducrotoy et al., 2016). Anti-S-LPS antibodies in serum include IgM, IgG and IgA. IgM dominates in the early phase but is rapidly replaced by IgG and to a lesser extent by IgA. During the early stages of infection, all these antibodies display agglutinating ability at neutral pH; as the infection evolves, non-agglutinating IgG and IgA antibodies progressively replace agglutinating antibodies. Non-agglutinating antibodies, however, become agglutinating at acid pH. Accordingly, S-LPS tests vary in their ability to detect those immunoglobulin classes, depending on pH (neutral in SAT and acid in the buffered plate agglutination tests [i.e. RBT, CT and BPAT), specificity of immuno-conjugate (immunosorbent assays) and the effect detected (agglutination, precipitation, complement consumption or primary binding; see Table 1). Vaccination, however, also elicits both DTH and antibody responses (Ducrotoy et al., 2016). The vaccines recommended by OIE are B. abortus S19 and B. abortus RB51 (OIE, 2016). Vaccine S19 elicit antibodies to the S-LPS whose intensity depends on age, dose and route of vaccination, and RB51 (a rough vaccine) triggers antibodies to the LPS lipid A-core but not to the OPS (Ducrotoy et al., 2016). Moreover, bacteria carrying OPS structurally close to the OPS of S brucellae can cause FPSR in S-LPS or OPS tests but not in protein tests (Ducrotoy et al., 2016).

There is a long list of brucellosis diagnostic tests and candidates (Ducrotoy et al., 2016; McGiven, 2013). Those that have come into use have only been the topic of partial reviews (Bale, 2002; Godfroid et al., 2010; Kaltungo et al., 2014; Nielsen, 2002; Nielsen and Yu, 2010; Poester et al., 2010; Smirnova et al., 2013) that with two exceptions (Anon., 2006; Greiner et al., 2009) have not critically examined the methodology of the studies reviewed. To fill this gap, in the present work the determination of the DSe and DSp4 is discussed first, and then strict criteria applied to a systematic review of the literature. Similarly, no work has so far discussed the application of the tests in the different contexts of brucellosis (infection and no vaccination, mass vaccination; elimination [i.e. local eradication]) based on vaccination and test-and-slaughter, and surveillance with presence of FPSR). Thus, the systematic review is complemented by a discussion of the application of tests.

Section snippets

Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in the context of brucellosis

The capacity of a test to accurately predict the infection status of the host depends essentially on its DSe and DSp, parameters that are determined using samples of sufficient numbers5

Studies reviewed

A systematic review was conducted following Prisma guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) (Fig. 2 and Supplemental Table S0). The eligibility criteria (Table 2) overlap with those of the scientific panel of experts commissioned by the European Food Safety Agency to evaluate brucellosis tests for ruminants (Anon., 2006). For eligibility, full texts were thoroughly examined by three of the authors (M.D., J.M.B. and I.M.) and studies classified into three groups: Bayesian, eligible gold standard and

Blood serum tests in non-vaccinated cattle and absence of FPSR

SAT, RBT, CT, BPAT and CFT are usually referred to as “classical” or “conventional” tests. All but SAT are OIE prescribed or alternative tests for trade (OIE, 2016). SAT shows low DSe (Anon., 2006; Table 3 and Table S1; for discrepant results see below) and its use is particularly troublesome in chronically infected herds (Davies, 1971) because of the dominance of non-agglutinating IgG after the acute phase (Ducrotoy et al., 2016). On the other hand, and in keeping with historical and more

Blood serum tests in Brucella-free cattle in FPSR contexts

Only two studies meet the criteria in Table 2. One study (Muñoz et al., 2005) tested sera positive in S-LPS tests (RBT and CFT) confirmed as true positives by bacteriological isolation of B. abortus or B. melitensis (Table 2, inclusion criterion 7), and adjusted the DSp of the immunosorbent assays to 100% in Brucella-free cattle not exposed to Y. enterocolitica O:9. This study (Table 4) shows that, whereas iELISAs with S-LPS or OPS-core display 100% DSp in the Brucella-free not exposed to Y.

Blood serum tests in vaccinated cattle

Although there are numerous reports of the DSp of tests after vaccination with S19, few contain precise information on the time lapse after vaccination, age of cattle at vaccination and vaccine route and dose, variables relevant to the antibody response (Ducrotoy et al., 2016). Table 5 summarizes those studies that provide this information for calf subcutaneous vaccination. Only few of these studies included a parallel DSe/DSp assessment in infected and Brucella-free cattle. However, as all

Milk antibody tests

The diagnostic aspects of the MRT have been reviewed elsewhere (Pietz, 1977). The MRT can yield false positive reactions in S19 cattle vaccinated less than 4 months before testing, in samples containing abnormal milk (such as colostrum) or in cases of mastitis. It is not sensitive enough in individual animals, and its main interest is to determine the infection status of dairy herds in bulk milk, where it has been reported to identify 88% of the herds in which infected animal(s) were in

Cellular immunity tests

The γ-interferon assay has been only the topic of work aimed to set up the method and to assess its ability to discriminate FPSR using experimentally infected animals (Kittelberger et al., 1997; Weynants et al., 1995, Weynants et al., 1998). For the brucellin skin test, it is essential to employ protein extracts free of LPS, OPS, NH or polysaccharide B to avoid dermal toxicity and/or Arthus-type hypersensitivity reactions, which requires the use of rough strains (Ducrotoy et al., 2016).

Validation studies using bayesian models

Table 6 lists DSe and DSp Bayesian estimates of relevant tests taken from key studies of diagnostic interest (for the origin of priors and other information, see Table S3). As expected, most of these studies have been performed in resource-limited areas where data on the prevalence of disease are scanty.

The studies that analyzed iELISAs coincide in reporting high DSe/DSp, which is in line with the studies using gold standard sera (compare Table 3, Table 6). However, of the three studies that

Conclusions: diagnostic tests in the main contexts of cattle brucellosis

Immunological tests are required at each step of intervention against cattle brucellosis: the evaluation of the prevalence, the assessment of the efficacy of control and elimination measures, and the confirmation of freedom of disease through surveillance.

Effective progress for each step depends on a set of requisites: (i) a proficient veterinary infrastructure and individual animal tagging, (ii) repeated access to the animals, (iii) the control of animal movements, and (iv) the involvement of

Author contributions

M.D., J.M.B. and I.M reviewed and discussed all the literature cited in the paper and supplemental materials. R.C.-A. and P.M. specifically contributed to Sections 4–6. MD and IM wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare not to have competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful to Professor Mathias Greiner for a critical reading of the manuscript.

This work was supported by the “Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad” of Spain (project AGL2014-58795-C4), INIA (project Bru-Epidia 291815-FP7/ERANET/ANIHWA) and consolidated group from Aragón Government A14.

References (143)

  • M. Greiner et al.

    Meta-analytical equivalence studies on diagnostic tests for bovine brucellosis allowing assessment of a test against a group of comparative tests

    Prev. Vet. Med.

    (2009)
  • R. Kittelberger et al.

    Serological crossreactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica 0:9. III. Specificity of the in vitro antigen-specific gamma interferon test for bovine brucellosis diagnosis in experimentally Yersinia enterocolitica 0:9-infected cattle

    Vet. Microbiol.

    (1997)
  • R. Kittelberger et al.

    Serological cross-reactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica 0:9: IV: evaluation of the M- and C-epitope antibody response for the specific detection of B. abortus infections

    Vet. Microbiol.

    (1998)
  • J. Kubler-Kielb et al.

    Reinvestigation of the structure of Brucella O-antigens

    Carbohyd. Res.

    (2013)
  • S.C. MacDiarmid et al.

    An intradermal test for the diagnosis of brucellosis in extensively managed cattle herds

    Prev. Vet. Med.

    (1987)
  • G. Matope et al.

    Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of RBT, c-ELISA and fluorescence polarisation assay for diagnosis of brucellosis in cattle using latent class analysis

    Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.

    (2011)
  • J.A. McGiven et al.

    Validation of FPA and cELISA for the detection of antibodies to Brucella abortus in cattle sera and comparison to SAT, CFT, and iELISA

    J. Immunol. Methods

    (2003)
  • A. Minas et al.

    Validation of fluorescence polarization assay (FPA) and comparison with other tests used for diagnosis of B. melitensis infection in sheep

    Vet. Microbiol.

    (2005)
  • A. Minas et al.

    Validation of a fluorescence polarization assay (FPA) performed in microplates and comparison with other tests used for diagnosing B. melitensis infection in sheep and goats

    J. Immunol. Methods

    (2007)
  • A. Minas et al.

    Validation of a competitive ELISA for diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection in sheep and goats

    Vet. J.

    (2008)
  • J.B. Muma et al.

    Evaluation of three serological tests for brucellosis in naturally infected cattle using latent class analysis

    Vet. Microbiol.

    (2007)
  • P. Nicoletti

    The use of a Brucella protein antigen in dermal hypersensitivity as an adjunct method to diagnose bovine brucellosis

    Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.

    (1983)
  • K.H. Nielsen et al.

    Improved competitive enzyme immunoassay for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis

    Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.

    (1995)
  • D.A. Abernethy et al.

    Field trial of six serological tests for bovine brucellosis

    Vet. J.

    (2011)
  • B. Alonso-Urmeneta et al.

    Evaluation of lipopolysaccharides and polysaccharides of different epitopic structures in the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of brucellosis in small ruminants and cattle

    Clin. Diag. Lab. Immunol.

    (1998)
  • G.G. Alton et al.

    Techniques for the Brucellosis Laboratory

    (1988)
  • G.G. Alton

    The control of bovine brucellosis: recent developments

    World Anim. Rev. (FAO)

    (1981)
  • Anonymous,

    Scientific opinion on Performance of brucellosis diagnostic methods for bovines, sheep, and goats

    EFSA J.

    (2006)
  • O.O.J. Bale

    A review of serological tests used in the diagnosis of brucellosis: usefulness and limitations

    NJAP

    (2002)
  • Z. Bercovich et al.

    Production of Brucella allergens and evaluation of their biological activity in a guinea-pig bio-assay

    Zentralbl. Veterinarmed. B.

    (1995)
  • Z. Bercovich et al.

    A comparison of the potency of several Brucella allergens used to detect brucellosis in cattle

    Vet. Res. Comm.

    (1996)
  • D.T. Berman

    Brucellosis

  • J.M. Blasco et al.

    Evaluation of allergic and serological tests for diagnosing Brucella melitensis infection in sheep

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (1994)
  • J.M. Blasco et al.

    Brucellosis vaccines and vaccine candidates

  • M.L. Boschiroli et al.

    Protection against infection in mice vaccinated with a Brucella abortus mutant

    Infect. Imm.

    (1997)
  • W.J. Brinley Morgan et al.

    The rose bengal plate agglutination test in the diagnosis of brucellosis

    Vet. Rec.

    (1969)
  • W.J. Brinley Morgan

    Brucellosis in britain

    Ann. Sclavo.

    (1977)
  • B.M. Bronsvoort et al.

    Comparison of a flow assay for brucellosis antibodies with the reference cELISA test in West African Bos indicus

    PLoS One

    (2009)
  • A. Campe et al.

    Latent class regression models for simultaneously estimating test accuracy, true prevalence and risk factors for Brucella abortus

    Epidemiol. Infect.

    (2016)
  • E.A. Carrasco et al.

    Comparación de cuatro técnicas de ELISA en la evaluación de la respuesta serológica de terneras vacunadas con Brucella abortus cepa 19

    Arch. Med. Vet.

    (1995)
  • N.F. Cheville et al.

    Cutaneous delayed hypersensitivity reactions of cattle vaccinated with mutant strains of Brucella abortus using brucellins prepared from various brucellar strains

    Am. J. Vet. Res.

    (1994)
  • C.C. Chukwu

    Differentiation of Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica serotype 09 infections in cattle: the use of specific lymphocyte transformation and brucellin skin tests

    Vet. Quart.

    (1987)
  • A. Cloeckaert et al.

    Antibody response to Brucella outer membrane proteins in bovine brucellosis: immunoblot analysis and competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using monoclonal antibodies

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (1992)
  • M.J. Corbel et al.

    Brucellosis in Humans and Animals

    (2006)
  • M.J. Corbel

    Brucellosis: an overview

    Emerg. Infect. Dis.

    (1997)
  • L.A. Corner et al.

    An evaluation of a biphasic medium for the isolation of Brucella abortus from bovine tissues

    Aust. Vet. J.

    (1985)
  • L.A. Corner et al.

    Distribution of Brucella abortus in infected cattle

    Aust. Vet. J.

    (1987)
  • I. Davidson et al.

    The second international standard for anti-Brucella abortus serum

    Bull. World Health Organ.

    (1969)
  • G. Davies

    The rose bengal test

    Vet. Rec.

    (1971)
  • M.J. de Miguel et al.

    Development of a selective culture medium for primary isolation of the main Brucella species

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2011)
  • Cited by (70)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Present address: Ceva Santé Animale, 10 Avenue de la Ballastière, 33500-LIBOURNE, France.

    2

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text