ResearchersLinks
Pakistan Journal of ZoologyA ResearchersLinks journal
Submit manuscriptReview for this journal

Short Communication · Volume 49, Issue 1, 21 January 2017 · Open Access

Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Camels in Sindh, Pakistan

· · · · · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 70050, Pakistan
  2. 2South Bohemian Research Center for Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hyrdrobiology, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Zatisi 728/II, 389 25 Vodnany, Czech Republic * Corresponding author: baloch.rasheed@hotmail.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
21 January 2017
Download PDF ePub eFLIP Set Alert Get Rights Reprints

From the article

  • Such kind of cross-sectional study was also conducted in Ethiopia and the overall prevalence of brucellosis was recorded as 11.9% by RBPT and 7.6% by CFT (Complement Fixation Test), and it was concluded that camel brucellosis was widely distributed in districts of Afar province.
  • The prevalence of brucellosis was detected in 26% females and in 16% males by RBPT and SAT, however lower prevalence of brucellosis was found in males (10%) and females (16%) camels by c-ELISA (Table I).
  • Higher prevalence of brucellosis in camels under 9 years of age might be due to lesser immunity.
  • The brucellosis is prevalent among the camels of study districts and the risk factors identified for individual animal seroprevalence included the sex and age.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

Brucellosis affects a wide range of animal species including human beings and is more severe in human than in animals. It imposes a huge burden on human health due to its zoonotic nature. Our study involves the testing of 100 sera samples and 50 milk samples from camels of three districts of Sindh province of Pakistan. Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT), serum agglutination test (SAT) and competitive-ELISA (c-ELISA) were used as screening tests, and overall seroprevalence of brucellosis was found to be as 21%, 21% and 13% by RBPT, SAT and c-ELISA tests, respectively. Seroprevalence was higher in females (26%) than in males (16%) by RBPT and SAT tests, and also in camels less than 9 years of age (13.33%). Milk samples were collected to detect the antibodies against the disease, however, none of the sample was found to be positive for brucellosis. It was concluded that the brucellosis is prevalent among camels of studied areas.

Materials and methods

Three main districts of Sindh province i.e., Thatta, (Latitude 24° 47’ North, Longitude 67° 23’ East) Badin (Latitude 24° 5’ to 25° 25’ North, Longitude 68° 21’ to 69° 20’ East) and Tharparkar were selected in 2013 to determine the seroprevalence of Brucella infections in camels and also to identify potential risk factor associated with seropositivity.

A total of 100 blood samples were collected and kept in refrigerator overnight for reparation of serum which was used for Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT) according to Gabbar (1992), serum agglutination test (SAT) and competitive-ELISA (c-ELISA) tests. In latter test a strong positive sample showed a clear transparent appearance while, the negative sample appeared orange.

A total of 50 milk samples collected from lactating female camels were used for Milk Ring Test (MRT) according to Gabbar (1992).

Results and discussion

A total of 100 serum samples, 50 each from males and females were collected and examined through RBPT, SAT and c-ELISA; 21, 21 and 13 sera were found positive for brucellosis, respectively, by these tests. The highest prevalence of brucellosis was found in Tharparker detected by all used serological tests. High prevalence of brucellosis might be due to free moving and grazing on open pastures and close contacts with infected animals. Secondly, the proper treatment is not provided to the infected animals.

In our present study we found higher prevalence of brucellosis in camels, which is not consistent with results of other study in which lower prevalence (9.26%) was recorded , and is consistent with other studies (11.42) ; . Highest prevalence of brucellosis was detected in camels by RBPT and SAT, however, there are chances of false positive due to cross reaction with antibodies of other bacterial species whereas the c-ELISA is more reliable than two aforementioned tests. This difference in seroprevalence might be due to parity, breed, managemental and seasonal variations or might be problem in recording the observation during investigation. Such kind of cross-sectional study was also conducted in Ethiopia and the overall prevalence of brucellosis was recorded as 11.9% by RBPT and 7.6% by CFT (Complement Fixation Test), and it was concluded that camel brucellosis was widely distributed in districts of Afar province. However, Sisay and Wereta (2012) found lower prevalence of camel brucellosis in Ethiopia, while in our study prevalence was higher, but seroprevalence determined in camels of Badin district by various techniques is similar to seroprevalence of brucellosis recorded in camels of two districts of Ethiopia through RBPT. Hence, results regarding seroprevalence in three districts of Sindh are in similar pattern as demonstrated in Ethiopia.

The prevalence of brucellosis was detected in 26% females and in 16% males by RBPT and SAT, however lower prevalence of brucellosis was found in males (10%) and females (16%) camels by c-ELISA (Table I). It was found that the prevalence of brucellosis in females were higher than that of males. It might be due to opening of cervix during estrus for more than a week, gets infected with brucella spp.

The prevalence of brucellosis in females and males was 26% and 16%, respectively. We found that prevalence of brucellosis in females was higher than in males, suggesting that females are at high risk of brucellosis than males. This is consistent with study of Ismail et al. (2012) as their study found that a higher seroprevalence of brucellosis (38.5%) was observed in adult females having the history of reproductive problems such as abortion, still birth and retained fetal membrane. However, no statistically significant difference was recorded in the study of Bekele et al. (2013); hence their findings are not in the agreement with our study and findings of Adamu and Ajogi (1999) and Junaidu et al. (2006).

Table I shows higher prevalence of brucellosis in camels less than 9 years of age, while lower prevalence was recorded in camels above 10 years of age. Higher prevalence of brucellosis in camels under 9 years of age might be due to lesser immunity.

Table I.- Brucellosis positive samples from blood samples of animals of different genders and age groups from Thatta, Badin and Tharparkar districts of Sindh.

A. Different districts RBPT SAT c-ELISA
Thatta      
No. of samples examined 33 33 33
Positive samples No. (%) 6 (18.18%) 6 (18.18%) 2 (6.06%)
Tharparker      
No. of samples examined 34 34 34
Positive samples No. (%) 11 (32.35%)

11 (32.35%)

 8 (23.0%)
Badin      
No. of samples examined 33 33 33
Positive samples No. (%) 4 (12.12%) 4 (12.12%) 3 (9.09%)
B. Different genders      
Females      
No. of serum samples 50 50 50
Positive samples No. (%) 13 (26.0%) 13 (26.0%) 8 (16.0%)

Males

      
No. of serum samples 50 50 50
Positive samples No. (%) 8 (16.0%) 8 (16.0%) 5 (10.0%)
C. Different age groups      
Age under 9 years      
No. of serum samples 60 60 60
Positive samples No. (%) 17 (28.33%)

17 (28.33%)

 8(13.33%)
Age above 10 years      
No. of serum samples 40 40 40
Positive samples No. (%) 4 (10.0%) 4 (10.0%)

5 (12.5%)

RBPT, Rose bengal plate test; SAT, Serum agglutination test; C-ELISA, competitive ELISA.

In our study we also considered the age of sampled camels, and of 60 sera samples, camels falling under the age of 9 years were more prone to the disease (28.33%), while on the other hand, camels aging more than 10 years (40 sera samples) were less prone (10%) to brucellosis. We think that camels that were less than 9 years lacking/or have lesser immunity, and this is not consistent with other studies, as this disease commonly persists in sexually mature camels ; .

We also collected the milk samples in order to detect the Brucella antibodies and the MRT was performed accordingly, for 50 milk samples. Interestingly, none of milk samples were found positive, which is not in agreement with the study of Al-Khalaf and El-Khaladi (1989), as they found 2 out of 3 milk samples positive by performing the same test.

Factors that contribute to the high prevalence rate of brucellosis in camels may be linked with the management system of camels in the studied districts. The mixing of camels during the time of migration, at watering time and/or in night enclosure can also play the transmission of the disease from infected animals to healthy ones.

Conclusion

The brucellosis is prevalent among the camels of study districts and the risk factors identified for individual animal seroprevalence included the sex and age. Hence, it is assumed that the disease likely spreads to unaffected camels and also the herds during the grazing and at watering points.

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic- projects CENAKVA (No. CZ.1.05/2.1.00/01.0024), CENAKVA II (No. LO1205 under the NPU I program); by the Czech Science Foundation (No. P502/13/ 26952S) and COST Office (Food and Agriculture COST Action FA1205: AQUAGAMETE).

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abou-Eisha., A.M., 2000. Assi. Vet. Med. J., 87: 54-64.
  2. Adamu, B. and Ajogi, I., 1999. Trop. Vet., 18: 45-48.
  3. Ahmad, R. and Nemat, Z., 2007. Brucellosis of camels in Iran. Priory Lodge Education.
  4. Ali, I., Chaudhry, M.S. and Farooq, U., 2009. Pak. Vet. J., 29: 85-92.
  5. Ali, S., Ali, Q., Abatih, E.N., Ullah, N., Ali, M., Khan, I. and Akhter, S., 2013. Pakistan J. Zool., 45: 1041-1046.
  6. Al-Khalaf, S. and El-Khaladi, A., 1989. Comp. Immunol. Micro. Infect. Dis., 12: 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(89)90057-6[CrossRef]
  7. Bekele, W.A., Tessema, T.S. and Melaku, S.K., 2013. Acta Vet. Scandinavica, 2013: 55-89.
  8. Cooper, C.W., 1992. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 86: 206-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0035-9203(92)90575-W[CrossRef]
  9. Dalrymple-Champneys, W., 1960. Clinical features, Brucella infection and undulant fever in man. Oxford University Press, London.
  10. El-Sherbini, A., Kabbasth, I., Schelling, E., El-Shennawy and Shalapy, S., 2007. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 101: 923–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2007.04.020[CrossRef]
  11. Fathey, A.R. and Moghney, A., 2004. Assi. Univ. Bull. Environ. Res., 1: 39-43.
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2003. FAO Anim. Product. Hlth. Pap., 156: 3-4.
  13. Gabbar, K.M.A., 1992. Procedure in veterinary microbiology. FAO of the United Nation, Database, 2nd ed. pp. 241-242.
  14. GoP (Government of Pakistan), 2006. Livestock census. Agriculture Census Organization, Government of Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan.
  15. Hegazy, Y.M., Moawad, A., Osman, S., Ridler, A. and Guitian, J., 2011. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis., 5: e944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000944[CrossRef]
  16. Ismail, W., Alemu, S., Temesgen, W. and Molla, W., 2012. Glob. Vet., 8: 480-483.
  17. Junaidu, A.U.S., Oboegbulem, I., Sharubutu, G.H. and Daneji, A.I., 2006. J. Anim. Prod. Adv., 2: 158-160.
  18. Marcotty, T., Matthys, F., Godfroid, J., Rigouts, L. and Ameni, G., 2009. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol, 103: 401–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/136485909X451771[CrossRef]
  19. Moreno, E. and Moriyón, I., 2002. Proc. natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99: 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.022622699[CrossRef]
  20. Mukhtar, F. and Kokab, F., 2007. Brucella serology in abattoir workers. J. Ayub. Med. Coll. Abbottabad, 20:57-61.
  21. Pappas, G., Papadimitriou, P., Akritidis, N., Christou, L. and Tsianos, E.V., 2006. Lancet Infect. Dis., 6: 91–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70382-6[CrossRef]
  22. Pedro-Pons, A., Farreras, P., Foz, A., Surós, J., Surinyach, R. and Frouchtman, R., 1968. Patol. Clín. Méd., Vol. VI. Salvat Ediciones S.A. Madrid.
  23. Radostitis, M., Blood, C. and Gay, C., 1994. In: Veterinary medicine; Textbook of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses. 8th edition. Bailliere Tindall, Radwa. London, pp. 787-787.
  24. Schelling, E., Diguimbaye, C., Daoud, S., Nicolet, J., Boerlin, P., Tanner, M. and Zinsstag, J., 2003. Preven. Vet. Med., 61: 279 -293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.08.004[CrossRef]
  25. Sisay, W.Z. and Wereta, M.H., 2012. J. environ. Occupat. Sci., 2: 91-98.
  26. Walker, R., 1999. Brucella. In: Veterinary microbiology (eds. C. Dwight, A. Hirsh and Z. Yuan). Blackwell Science. Oxford, pp. 196-202.
  27. World Health Organization, 2005. The control of neglected zoonotic diseases. Report of a joint WHO/DFID-AHP. Geneva: pp. 54. Available: http://www.who.int/zoonoses/Report_Sept06.pdf.

Related articles

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…

Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Camels in Sindh, Pakistan · ResearchersLinks