Veterinary Research Communications

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 209–213

Improving the specificity of immunodiagnosis for porcine brucellosis

  • R. E. Thirlwall
  • N. J. Commander
  • S. D. Brew
  • S. J. Cutler
  • J. A. McGiven
  • J. A. Stack
Short Communication

Abstract

This report describes the use of cell mediated immunity to improve specificity of current diagnosis for Brucella suis. Diagnosis is problematic due to cross reactions that lead to false positive serological reactions (FPSR) in the standard diagnostic tests. A common cause of this cross reactivity is infection with the organism Yersinia enterocolitica O:9. Gottingen™ mini-pigs were experimentally infected with B. suis biovar I field strain or Y. enterocolitica serotype O:9 biotype 3. Infection was followed for 70 days. During this time whole blood stimulation assays were set up using Brucella specific antigen. IFNγ was measured in the supernatants (SN) from these assays by ELISA. Concurrent standard serological tests were carried out. The results indicate that the IFNγ assay is specifically able to distinguish Y. enterocolitica O:9 infection from a B. suis infection in experimentally infected mini-pigs. These results represent an improvement in diagnostic specificity compared to currently used serological tests. Thus suggesting that in a surveillance setting this test could be applied as a confirmatory test in the face of FPSR.

Keywords

Brucella B. suis IFNγ FPSR Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 Diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alton, G.G., Jones, L.M., Angus, R.D. and Verger, J.M., 1988. Techniques for the brucellosis laboratory, Paris: INRA, 42–47Google Scholar
  2. Castañeda, M. R., 1947. A practical method for routine blood cultures in brucellosis. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, New York, 64, 114–115Google Scholar
  3. Corbel M.J., 1985. Recent advances in the study of Brucella antigens and their serological cross-reactions. Veterinary Bulletin, 55, 927–942Google Scholar
  4. Godfroid J, Kasbohrer A., 2002. Brucellosis in the European Union and Norway at the turn of the twenty-first century. Veterinary Microbiology, 90, 135–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jungersen, G., Sorensen, V., Giese, S.B., Stack, J.A. and Riber, U., 2006. Differentiation between serological responses to Brucella suis and Yersinia enterocolitica serotype O:9 after natural or experimental infection in pigs. Epidemiology and Infection, 134, 347–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kittelberger, R., Hilbink, F., Hansen, M.F., Penrose, M., De Lisle, G.W., Letesson, J.J., Garin-Bastuji, B., Searson, J., Fossati, C.A., Cloeckaert, A. and Schurig, G., 1995. Serological crossreactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 I immunoblot analysis of the antibody response to Brucella protein antigens in bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Microbiology, 47, 257–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kittelberger, R., Hilbink, F., Hansen, M.F., Ross, G.P., Joyce, M.A., Fenwick, S., Heesemann, J., Wolf-Watz, H. and Nielsen, K., 1995. Serological crossreactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 II the use of Yersinia outer proteins for the specific detection of Yersinia enterocolitica infections in ruminants. Veterinary Microbiology, 47, 271–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kittelberger, R., Reichel, M.P., Joyce, M.A. and Staak, C., 1997. Serological crossreactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica O:9. III. Specificity of the in vitro antigen-specific gamma interferon test for bovine brucellosis diagnosis in experimentally Yersinia enterocolitica O:9-infected cattle. Veterinary Microbiology, 57, 361–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kittelberger, R., Bundesen, P.G., Cloeckaert, A., Greiser-Wilke, I. and Letesson, J.J., 1998. Serological cross-reactivity between Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica O:9: IV. Evaluation of the M- and C-epitope antibody response for the specific detection of B. abortus infections. Veterinary Microbiology, 60, 45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McNally, A., Cheasty, Y.T., Fearnley, C., Dalziel, R.W., Paiba, G.A., Manning, G. and Newell, D.G., 2004. Comparison of the biotypes of Yersinia enterocolitica isolated from pigs, cattle and sheep at slaughter and from humans with yersiniosis in Great Britain during 1999–2000. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 39, 103–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nielsen, K., Smith, P., Widdison, J., Gall, D., Kelly, L., Kelly, W. and Nicoletti, P., 2004. Serological relationship between cattle exposed to Brucella abortus, Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Veterinary Microbiology, 100, 25–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. OIE MANUAL of DIAGNOSTIC TESTS and VACCINES for TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS, FIFTH EDITION. (2004) Porcine Brucellosis, 2.6.2; 777–784Google Scholar
  13. Riber U., and Jungersen G., 2007. Cell mediated immune responses differentiate infections with Brucella suis from Yersinia enterocolitica serotype O:9 in pigs. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 116, 13–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Staak, C., Draeger, A., Bahn, P. and Nockler, K., 2000. Contribution to the differentiation of cross-reacting antibodies in brucellosis serology-1. Reactions with various Yersinia serotypes and antibody avidity. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 113, 361–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Stack J.A., Perrett L.L., Brew S.D. and MacMillan A.P., 1999. Competitive ELISA for bovine brucellosis suitable for testing poor quality samples. Veterinary Record, 145, 735–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wrathall, A.E., Broughton, E.S., Gill, K.P., and Goldsmith, G.P., 1993. Serological reactions to Brucella species in British pigs. Veterinary Record, 132, 449–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. E. Thirlwall
    • 1
  • N. J. Commander
    • 1
  • S. D. Brew
    • 1
  • S. J. Cutler
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. A. McGiven
    • 1
  • J. A. Stack
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Statutory and Exotic BacteriaVeterinary Laboratories AgencySurreyUK
  2. 2.University East LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations