An evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay (Bruce-ladder) was performed in seven laboratories using 625 Brucella strains from different animal and geographical origins. This robust test can differentiate in a single step all of the classical Brucella species, including those found in marine mammals and the S19, RB51, and Rev.1 vaccine strains.

The brucellae are facultative intracellular bacteria that cause brucellosis, one of the major neglected zoonoses. In endemic areas, vaccination is the only effective way to control this disease. Brucella melitensis Rev 1 is a vaccine effective against the brucellosis of sheep and goat caused by B. melitensis, the commonest source of human infection. However, Rev 1 carries a smooth lipopolysaccharide with an O-polysaccharide that elicits antibodies interfering in serodiagnosis, a major problem in eradication campaigns. Because of this, rough Brucella mutants lacking the O-polysaccharide have been proposed as vaccines. To examine the possibilities of rough vaccines, we screened B. melitensis for lipopolysaccharide genes and obtained mutants representing all main rough phenotypes with regard to core oligosaccharide and O-polysaccharide synthesis and export. Using the mouse model, mutants were classified into four attenuation patterns according to their multiplication and persistence in spleens at different doses. In macrophages, mutants belonging to three of these attenuation patterns reached the Brucella characteristic intracellular niche and multiplied intracellularly, suggesting that they could be suitable vaccine candidates. Virulence patterns, intracellular behavior and lipopolysaccharide defects roughly correlated with the degree of protection afforded by the mutants upon intraperitoneal vaccination of mice. However, when vaccination was applied by the subcutaneous route, only two mutants matched the protection obtained with Rev 1 albeit at doses one thousand fold higher than this reference vaccine. These mutants, which were blocked in O-polysaccharide export and accumulated internal O-polysaccharides, stimulated weak anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies. The results demonstrate that no rough mutant is equal to Rev 1 in laboratory models and question the notion that rough vaccines are suitable for the control of brucellosis in endemic areas.

Background: The 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Mean 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. Conclusions: In 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.

Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 bears a smooth lipopolysaccharide (S-LPS) of Brucella sp. O-chain A + C/Y epitopic structure and is a cause of false-positive serological reactions (FPSR) in standard tests for cattle brucellosis. Brucella S-LPS, cross-reacting S-LPSs representing several O-chain epitope combinations, Brucella core lipid A epitopes (rough LPS), Brucella abortus S-LPS-derived polysaccharide, native hapten polysaccharide, rough LPS group 3 outer membrane protein complexes, recombinant BP26, and cytosolic proteins were tested in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and precipitation tests to detect cattle brucellosis (sensitivity) and to differentiate it from FPSR (specificity). No single serological test and antigen combination showed 100% sensitivity and specificity simultaneously. Immunoprecipitation tests with native hapten polysaccharide, counterimmunoelectrophoresis with cytosolic proteins, and a chaotropic ELISA with Brucella S-LPS were 100% specific but less sensitive than the Rose Bengal test, complement fixation, and indirect ELISA with Brucella S-LPSs and native hapten or S-LPS-derived polysaccharides. A competitive ELISA with Brucella S-LPS and M84 C/Y-specific monoclonal antibody was not 100% specific and was less sensitive than other tests. ELISA with Brucella suis bv. 2 S-LPS (deficient in C epitopes), Escherichia hermannii S-LPSs [lacking the contiguous α-(1-2)-linked perosamine residues characteristic of Y. enterocolitica S-LPS], BP26 recombinant protein, and Brucella cytosolic fractions did not provide adequate sensitivity/specificity ratios. Although no serological test and antigen combination fully resolved the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in the presence of FPSR, some are simple and practical alternatives to the brucellin skin test currently recommended for differential diagnosis.