All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Titers of Anti-Brucella Antibodies by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Brucellosis Infected Cattle

DOI: 10.4236/ojvm.2017.710013, PP. 131-137

Keywords: Antibody Titer, Brucella, Brucellosis, Bovine, ELISA

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Brucellosis is an important re-emerging zoonotic disease caused by Brucella organisms. In the absence of a Differentiation of Infected from Vaccinated Animal (DIVA) assay for bovine Brucellosis, it becomes difficult to assess whether the anti-Brucella antibody response in an animal is due to vaccination or infection. We compared the anti-Brucella antibody titers of naturally Brucellosis affected unvaccinated cows, previously vaccinated infected cows, normal healthy vaccinated cows and healthy unvaccinated calves. The titers of anti-Brucella antibodies were estimated by indirect ELISA. The mean titer (log10) was found to be 1.518 ± 0.005 in case of naturally Brucellosis affected cattle which had been vaccinated during calf hood. The mean titer in case of naturally infected cattle which had never been vaccinated was 1.5441 ± 0.005. The mean titer in healthy unaffected cattle vaccinated during calf hood was 1.504 ± 0.002 and that of unvaccinated healthy calves was 0.560 ± 0.016. It was interesting to find that the antibody titers in naturally affected cattle which had never been vaccinated were very significantly (p < 0.01) higher than those of Brucellosis affected cows which had been vaccinated during calf hood. The titer in vaccinated infected cattle was very significantly (p < 0.01) higher than that of uninfected vaccinated cows.


[1]  Kollannur, J.D., Rathore, R. and Chauhan, R.S. (2007) Epidemiology and Economics of Brucellosis in Animals and Its Zoonotic Significance. Proceedings of XIII International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Tartu, Estonia, 17-21 June 2007, 466-468.
[2]  Godfroid, J., Garin-Bastuji, B., Saegerman, C. and Blasco, J.M. (2013) Brucellosis in Terrestrial Wildlife. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’ Office International des Epizooties, 32, 27-42.
[3]  Moriyon, I., Grillo, M.J., Monreal, D., Gonzalez, D., Marin, C., Lopez-Goni, I., Mainar-Jaime, R.C., Moreno, E. and Blasco, J.M. (2004) Rough Vaccines in Animal Brucellosis: Structural and Genetic Basis and Present Status. Veterinary Research, 35, 1-38.
[4]  Mohan, A., Saxena, H.M. and Malhotra, P. (2016) A Comparison of Titers of Anti-Brucella Antibodies of Naturally Infected and Healthy Vaccinated Cattle by Standard Tube Agglutination Test, Microtiter Plate Agglutination Test, Indirect Hemagglutination Assay, and Indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. Veterinary World, 9, 717-722.
[5]  Morgan, W.J., Mackinnon, D.T., Gill, K.P.W., Gower, S.G.M. and Norris, P.I.W. (1978) Brucellosis Diagnosis: Standard Laboratory Techniques Report Series No. 1. MAFF, Weybridge, England.
[6]  Falconi, C., Oleaga, A., Lopez-Olvera, J.R., Casais, R., Prieto, M. et al. (2009) Prevalence of Antibodies against Selected Agents Shared between Cantabrian Chamois and Domestic Goats. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 56, 319-325.
[7]  Saz, J.V., Beltrán, M., Díaz, A., Agulla, A., Merino, F.J., Villasante, P.A. and Velasco, A.C. (1987) Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Brucellosis. Clinical Microbiology, 6, 71-74.
[8]  Ganesan, P.I. and Anuradha, P. (2006) Rose Bengal Test and Dot-ELISA in Diagnosis of Bovine Brucellosis. Indian Veterinary Journal, 83, 907.
[9]  Bellaire, B.H., Roop, R.M. and Cardelli, J.A. (2005) Opsonized Virulent Brucella abortus Replicates within Non Acidic, Endoplasmic Reticulum—Negative, LAMP-1 Positive Phagosomes in Human Monocytes. Infection and Immunity, 73, 3702-3713.
[10]  Baldwin, C.L. and Goenka, R. (2006) Host Immune Responses to the Intracellular Bacterium Brucella: Does the Bacterium Instruct the Host to Facilitate Chronic Infection? Critical Reviews in Immunology, 26, 407-442.
[11]  Oliveira, S.C. and Splitter, G.A. (1994) Subcloning and Expression of Brucella abortus L7/L12 Ribosomal Gene and T-Lymphocyte Recognition of the Recombinant Protein. Infection and Immunity, 62, 5201-5204.


comments powered by Disqus