-
Cureus Mar 2021Brucellosis is infrequently reported in the United States and is mostly an occupational hazard among workers engaged in livestock raising and processing. It is a...
Brucellosis is infrequently reported in the United States and is mostly an occupational hazard among workers engaged in livestock raising and processing. It is a systemic infectious disease and can involve the liver in varying ways, ranging from benign subclinical increases in serum aminotransferase levels to ominous chronic suppurative disease. It is endemic in many countries, primarily those of the Mediterranean region. It is usually treated with antibiotics. We present a case of a 37-year-old female who developed -induced transaminitis, which improved with proper diagnosis and management.
PubMed: 33824807
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13656 -
International Journal of Infectious... Jan 2018
PubMed: 29146514
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2017.11.014 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2022Brucellosis is a bacterial zoonosis caused by spp. which can lead to heavy economic losses and severe human diseases. Thus, controlling brucellosis is very important.... (Review)
Review
Brucellosis is a bacterial zoonosis caused by spp. which can lead to heavy economic losses and severe human diseases. Thus, controlling brucellosis is very important. Due to humans easily gaining brucellosis from animals, animal brucellosis control programs can help the eradication of human brucellosis. There are two popular vaccines against animal brucellosis. Live attenuated strain 19 (S19 vaccine) is the first effective and most extensively used vaccine for the prevention of brucellosis in cattle. Live attenuated strain Rev.1 (Rev.1 vaccine) is the most effective vaccine against caprine and ovine brucellosis. Although these two vaccines provide good immunity for animals against brucellosis, the expense of persistent serological responses is one of the main problems of both vaccines. The advantages and limitations of vaccines, especially new vaccine candidates, have been less studied. In addition, there is an urgent need for new strategies to control and eradicate this disease. Therefore, this narrative review aims to present an updated overview of the available different types of brucellosis vaccines.
PubMed: 35923818
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.925773 -
PLoS Pathogens Jun 2022Brucellae are facultative intracellular Gram-negative coccobacilli that chronically infect various mammals and cause brucellosis. Human brucellosis is among the most...
Brucellae are facultative intracellular Gram-negative coccobacilli that chronically infect various mammals and cause brucellosis. Human brucellosis is among the most common bacterial zoonoses and the vast majority of cases are attributed to B. melitensis. Using transposon sequencing (Tn-seq) analysis, we showed that among 3369 predicted genes of the B. melitensis genome, 861 are required for optimal growth in rich medium and 186 additional genes appeared necessary for survival of B. melitensis in RAW 264.7 macrophages in vitro. As the mucosal immune system represents the first defense against Brucella infection, we investigated the early phase of pulmonary infection in mice. In situ analysis at the single cell level indicates a succession of killing and growth phases, followed by heterogenous proliferation of B. melitensis in alveolar macrophages during the first 48 hours of infection. Tn-seq analysis identified 94 additional genes that are required for survival in the lung at 48 hours post infection. Among them, 42 genes are common to RAW 264.7 macrophages and the lung conditions, including the T4SS and purine synthesis genes. But 52 genes are not identified in RAW 264.7 macrophages, including genes implicated in lipopolysaccharide (LPS) biosynthesis, methionine transport, tryptophan synthesis as well as fatty acid and carbohydrate metabolism. Interestingly, genes implicated in LPS synthesis and β oxidation of fatty acids are no longer required in Interleukin (IL)-17RA-/- mice and asthmatic mice, respectively. This demonstrates that the immune status determines which genes are required for optimal survival and growth of B. melitensis in vivo.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Animals; Brucella melitensis; Brucellosis; Lipopolysaccharides; Macrophages; Mammals; Mice
PubMed: 35771771
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010621 -
Microorganisms Aug 2022Brucellosis is one of the most important and widespread bacterial zoonoses worldwide. Cases are reported annually across the range of known infectious species of the... (Review)
Review
Brucellosis is one of the most important and widespread bacterial zoonoses worldwide. Cases are reported annually across the range of known infectious species of the genus Globally, , primarily hosted by domestic sheep and goats, affects large proportions of livestock herds, and frequently spills over into humans. While some species, such as , are well controlled in livestock in areas of North America, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem supports the species in native wild ungulates with occasional spillover to livestock. Elsewhere in North America, other species still infect domestic dogs and feral swine, with some associated human cases. spp. patterns vary across space globally with and the most important for livestock control. A myriad of other species within the genus infect a wide range of marine mammals, wildlife, rodents, and even frogs. Infection in humans from these others varies with geography and bacterial species. Control in humans is primarily achieved through livestock vaccination and culling and requires accurate and rapid species confirmation; vaccination is spp.-specific and typically targets single livestock species for distribution. Traditional bacteriology methods are slow (some media can take up to 21 days for bacterial growth) and often lack the specificity of molecular techniques. Here, we summarize the molecular techniques for confirming and identifying specific species and provide recommendations for selecting the appropriate methods based on need, sensitivity, and laboratory capabilities/technology. As vaccination/culling approaches are costly and logistically challenging, proper diagnostics and species identification are critical tools for targeting surveillance and control.
PubMed: 36014002
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10081584 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2022and are the primary etiological agents of brucellosis in small domestic ruminants. was first isolated in 1887 by David Bruce in Malta Island from spleens of four... (Review)
Review
and are the primary etiological agents of brucellosis in small domestic ruminants. was first isolated in 1887 by David Bruce in Malta Island from spleens of four soldiers, while was originally isolated in Australia and New Zealand in early 1950's from ovine abortion and rams epididymitis. Today, both agents are distributed worldwide: remains endemic and associated with an extensive negative impact on the productivity of flocks in -some regions, and is still present in most sheep-raising regions in the world. Despite being species of the same bacterial genus, and have extensive differences in their cultural and biochemical characteristics (smooth vs. rough colonial phases, serum and CO dependence for growth, carbohydrate metabolism), host preference (female goat and sheep vs. rams), the outcome of infection (abortion vs. epididymitis), and their zoonotic potential. Some of these differences can be explained at the bacterial genomic level, but the role of the host genome in promoting or preventing interaction with pathogens is largely unknown. Diagnostic techniques and measures to prevent and control brucellosis in small ruminants vary, with having more available tools for detection and prevention than . This review summarizes and analyzes current available information on: (1) the similarities and differences between these two etiological agents of brucellosis in small ruminants, (2) the outcomes after their interaction with different preferred hosts and current diagnostic methodologies, (3) the prevention and control measures, and (4) alerting animal producers about the disease and raise awareness in the research community for future innovative activities.
PubMed: 35647101
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.887671 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Nov 2017
Topics: Animals; Brucella abortus; Brucella melitensis; Brucellosis; Cattle; Dogs; Goats; Humans; Sheep; Swine; Vietnam; Zoonoses
PubMed: 28669842
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.06.028 -
BMC Microbiology Oct 2021Rickettsia is the pathogen of Q fever, Brucella ovis is the pathogen of brucellosis, and both of them are Gram-negative bacteria which are parasitic in cells. The mixed... (Review)
Review
Rickettsia is the pathogen of Q fever, Brucella ovis is the pathogen of brucellosis, and both of them are Gram-negative bacteria which are parasitic in cells. The mixed infection of rickettsia and Brucella ovis is rarely reported in clinic. Early diagnosis and treatment are of great significance to the treatment and prognosis of brucellosis and Q fever. Here, we report a case of co-infection Rickettsia burneti and Brucella melitensis. The patient is a 49-year-old sheepherder, who was hospitalized with left forearm trauma. Three days after admission, the patient developed fever of 39.0°C, accompanied by sweating, fatigue, poor appetite and headache. Indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) was used to detect Rickettsia burneti IgM. After 72 hours of blood culture incubation, bacterial growth was detected in aerobic bottles, Gram-negative bacilli were found in culture medium smear, the colony was identified as Brucella melitensis by mass spectrometry. Patients were treated with doxycycline (100 mg bid, po) and rifampicin (600 mg qd, po) for 4 weeks. After treatment, the symptoms disappeared quickly, and there was no sign of recurrence or chronic infection. Q fever and Brucella may exist in high-risk practitioners, so we should routinely detect these two pathogens to prevent missed diagnosis.
Topics: Brucella melitensis; Brucellosis; Coinfection; Doxycycline; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Rickettsia; Rickettsia Infections; Rifampin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34610810
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02323-x -
Veterinary Research Mar 2022Brucella melitensis and Brucella ovis are gram-negative pathogens of sheep that cause severe economic losses and, although B. ovis is non-zoonotic, B. melitensis is the...
Brucella melitensis and Brucella ovis are gram-negative pathogens of sheep that cause severe economic losses and, although B. ovis is non-zoonotic, B. melitensis is the main cause of human brucellosis. B. melitensis carries a smooth (S) lipopolysaccharide (LPS) with an N-formyl-perosamine O-polysaccharide (O-PS) that is absent in the rough LPS of B. ovis. Their control and eradication require vaccination, but B. melitensis Rev 1, the only vaccine available, triggers anti-O-PS antibodies that interfere in the S-brucellae serodiagnosis. Since eradication and serological surveillance of the zoonotic species are priorities, Rev 1 is banned once B. melitensis is eradicated or where it never existed, hampering B. ovis control and eradication. To develop a B. ovis specific vaccine, we investigated three Brucella live vaccine candidates lacking N-formyl-perosamine O-PS: Bov::CAΔwadB (CO-independent B. ovis with truncated LPS core oligosaccharide); Rev1::wbdRΔwbkC (carrying N-acetylated O-PS); and H38ΔwbkF (B. melitensis rough mutant with intact LPS core). After confirming their attenuation and protection against B. ovis in mice, were tested in rams for efficacy. H38ΔwbkF yielded similar protection to Rev 1 against B. ovis but Bov::CAΔwadB and Rev1::wbdRΔwbkC conferred no or poor protection, respectively. All H38ΔwbkF vaccinated rams developed a protracted antibody response in ELISA and immunoprecipitation B. ovis diagnostic tests. In contrast, all remained negative in Rose Bengal and complement fixation tests used routinely for B. melitensis diagnosis, though some became positive in S-LPS ELISA owing to LPS core epitope reactivity. Thus, H38ΔwbkF is an interesting candidate for the immunoprophylaxis of B. ovis in B. melitensis-free areas.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Bacterial; Brucella Vaccine; Brucella melitensis; Brucella ovis; Brucellosis; Male; Mice; Sheep; Sheep Diseases
PubMed: 35236406
DOI: 10.1186/s13567-022-01034-z