8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Retrospective Survey of the Abortion Outbreak Event Caused by Brucellosis at a Blue Fox Breeding Farm in Heilongjiang Province, China

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Brucellosis is a common zoonosis in China, resulting in abortion in animals. Outbreaks of abortion in blue foxes caused by Brucella infection have rarely been reported. In the present study, 3–5 mL blood samples collected from the femoral veins of 10 abortuses of blue foxes were assessed by RBPT (Rose Bengal plate test) and SAT (serum tube agglutination test) to preliminarily investigate the source of infection for the clustering of abortion events at a blue fox farm in Heilongjiang Province. Screening experiments showed that all 10 blood samples were positive in the RBPT, while only eight blood samples out of the 10 were positive in the SAT. Subsequently, 10 tissue samples (spleen, lungs, stomach contents, and afterbirth) from the same 10 foxes were assessed using AMOS (acronym for B. abortus, melitensis, ovis, and suis)-PCR (polymerase chain reaction), and sequencing analysis was performed on amplification products to verify the results of the serology survey. Results showed a spectral band of ~731 bp in these samples. BLAST showed sequences of AMOS-PCR products in this study to be 100% similar ( E = 0.0) to sequences in B. melitensis strain from GenBank. These data preliminarily indicated that the blue fox's outbreak of abortion events was caused by brucellosis via the B. melitensis strain. Then 726 serum samples were tested by RBPT and SAT to determine the prevalence of brucellosis on the farm. A comprehensive epidemiological and reproductive status survey of the infected blue fox population was performed. The seropositive rate was found to be 67.90% (493/726) by RBPT and 41.32% (300/726) by SAT. The technicians had stopped feeding the foxes with chicken carcasses and instead fed them raw ground sheep organs (lungs, tracheae, placentae, and dead sheep fetuses) infected by B. meliteneis strains, and that this change in diet caused the outbreak of abortion events. The high abortion rate (55%) and low cub survival rate (65%) were the most distinctive features of the outbreak; these factors led to severe economic losses. Feeding cooked sheep/goat offal and strict breeding management is necessary for disease prevention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife.

          To describe and discuss the merits of various direct and indirect methods applied in vitro (mainly on blood or milk) or in vivo (allergic test) for the diagnosis of brucellosis in animals. The recent literature on brucellosis diagnostic tests was reviewed. These diagnostic tests are applied with different goals, such as national screening, confirmatory diagnosis, certification, and international trade. The validation of such diagnostic tests is still an issue, particularly in wildlife. The choice of the testing strategy depends on the prevailing brucellosis epidemiological situation and the goal of testing. Measuring the kinetics of antibody production after Brucella spp. infection is essential for analyzing serological results correctly and may help to predict abortion. Indirect ELISAs help to discriminate 1) between false positive serological reactions and true brucellosis and 2) between vaccination and infection. Biotyping of Brucella spp. provides valuable epidemiological information that allows tracing an infection back to the sources in instances where several biotypes of a given Brucella species are circulating. Polymerase chain reaction and new molecular methods are likely to be used as routine typing and fingerprinting methods in the coming years. The diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife is complex and serological results need to be carefully analyzed. The B. abortus S19 and B. melitensis Rev. 1 vaccines are the cornerstones of control programs in cattle and small ruminants, respectively. There is no vaccine available for pigs or for wildlife. In the absence of a human brucellosis vaccine, prevention of human brucellosis depends on the control of the disease in animals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis

            The clinical presentation of brucellosis in humans is variable and unspecific, and thus, laboratory corroboration of the diagnosis is essential for the patient’s proper treatment. The diagnosis of brucellar infections can be made by culture, serological tests, and nucleic acid amplification assays. Modern automated blood culture systems enable detection of acute cases of brucellosis within the routine 5- to 7-day incubation protocol employed in clinical microbiology laboratories, although a longer incubation and performance of blind subcultures may be needed for protracted cases. Serological tests, though they lack specificity and provide results that may be difficult to interpret in individuals repeatedly exposed to Brucella organisms, nevertheless remain a diagnostic cornerstone in resource-poor countries. Nucleic acid amplification assays combine exquisite sensitivity, specificity, and safety and enable rapid diagnosis of the disease. However, long-term persistence of positive molecular test results in patients that have apparently fully recovered is common and has unclear clinical significance and therapeutic implications. Therefore, as long as there are no sufficiently validated commercial tests or studies that demonstrate an adequate interlaboratory reproducibility of the different homemade PCR assays, cultures and serological methods will remain the primary tools for the diagnosis and posttherapeutic follow-up of human brucellosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Advancement of knowledge of Brucella over the past 50 years.

              Fifty years ago, bacteria in the genus Brucella were known to cause infertility and reproductive losses. At that time, the genus was considered to contain only 3 species: Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis, and Brucella suis. Since the early 1960s, at least 7 new species have been identified as belonging to the Brucella genus (Brucella canis, Brucella ceti, Brucella inopinata, Brucella microti, Brucella neotomae, Brucella ovis, and Brucella pinnipedialis) with several additional new species under consideration for inclusion. Although molecular studies have found such high homology that some authors have proposed that all Brucella are actually 1 species, the epidemiologic and diagnostic benefits for separating the genus based on phenotypic characteristics are more compelling. Although pathogenic Brucella spp have preferred reservoir hosts, their ability to infect numerous mammalian hosts has been increasingly documented. The maintenance of infection in new reservoir hosts, such as wildlife, has become an issue for both public health and animal health regulatory personnel. Since the 1960s, new information on how Brucella enters host cells and modifies their intracellular environment has been gained. Although the pathogenesis and histologic lesions of B. abortus, B. melitensis, and B. suis in their preferred hosts have not changed, additional knowledge on the pathology of these brucellae in new hosts, or of new species of Brucella in their preferred hosts, has been obtained. To this day, brucellosis remains a significant human zoonosis that is emerging or reemerging in many parts of the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Vet Sci
                Front Vet Sci
                Front. Vet. Sci.
                Frontiers in Veterinary Science
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2297-1769
                15 June 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 666254
                Affiliations
                [1] 1College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University , Daqing, China
                [2] 2Department of Heilongjiang Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Pharmaceutical Development, College of Veterinary Medicine, Northeast Agricultural University , Harbin, China
                [3] 3Pharmacy Department, Harbin Medical University-Daqing , Daqing, China
                [4] 4Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention , Beijing, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Anuwat Wiratsudakul, Mahidol University, Thailand

                Reviewed by: Maryam Dadar, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Iran; Kumaragurubaran Karthik, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, India

                *Correspondence: Zhiguo Liu wlcblzg@ 123456126.com

                This article was submitted to Veterinary Infectious Diseases, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fvets.2021.666254
                8239190
                34212019
                2e9b8d56-07e3-4d5b-b4dd-014dccb49ac8
                Copyright © 2021 Zhou, Meng, Ren, Liu and Li.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 February 2021
                : 06 April 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 45, Pages: 6, Words: 5076
                Categories
                Veterinary Science
                Original Research

                brucella melitensis,abortion,reproductive,blue fox,goats (sheep) offal

                Comments

                Comment on this article