Download PDF Download ePUB

Markers for the Molecular Diagnosis of Brucellosis in Animals

Vivek Kumar Gupta^1*, Shivasharanappa Nayakwadi¹, Amit Kumar², Kumaresan Gururaj¹, Ashok Kumar¹, Rajveer Singh Pawaiya¹

*Corresponding author:[email protected]

ARTICLE CITATION: Gupta VK, Nayakwadi S, Kumar A, Gururaj K, Kumar A, Pawaiya RS (2014). Markers for the molecular diagnosis of brucellosis in animals. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2 (3S): 31 – 39.
Received: 2014–02–01, Revised: 2014–02–27, Accepted: 2014–02–28
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at ( http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2014/2.3s.31.39 ) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

ABSTRACT

Brucellosis is a reemerging zoonotic disease, which acquire high significance because it’s worldwide prevalence and threat to human health. So far, isolation of the organism is the gold standard for the confirmation of the disease. However, the biosafety concern limits the isolation without costly equipment and skilled technical staff. Under such scenario diagnosis is to be performed by the best available methods with minimum possibility of biohazards. These methods involved serological and molecular detection of antigens/ antibodies and nucleic acids. Serological methods are not so prompt for species specific identification and need differentiation of vaccinated to infected animals. Whereas molecular methods are less time consuming and more sensitive and specific for genus and species identification in the same reaction. Hence present review discusses all the possible molecular targets with antigenic signatures presently being used for the genus and species identification of the Brucella. These molecular targets are the base for the confirmatory diagnosis at species and biovars levels directly from the samples without going for the isolation of the organism.

INTRODUCTION

Brucellosis, an important zoonotic disease, is a major threat to human and animal health with worldwide prevalence Brucella spp, causative agent of brucellosis has a wide range of hosts which includes wild animals. This disease resulted into abortion, still birth and subsequent infertility (Alton 1988). A number of (nine) brucella spp are known till date are classified based on host and antigenic variation. These are B melitensis (host: Sheep and goats), B abortus (host: cattle), B ovis (host: Sheep), B. suis (host: Pigs), B. neotomae (host: Wood rats), B canis (host: Dogs), and B. microti (host: Common voles) (Cutler and Whatmore, 2003). Some species of Brucella isolated from marine animals viz: B. pinnipedialis and B. ceti (Munoz et al., 2010). The B abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis are categorized as classical Brucella and comprised of seven, three and five biovars respectively. Other Brucella species are not been differentiated into biovars. (Verger et al., 1987). The clinical picture of the disease usually comprised of retained placenta, orchitis and epididymitis, arthritis, with excretion of the Brucella spp in discharges and milk of Brucella infecxted infected animal (Foster et al., 2007; Munoz et al., 2010).

There are several methods for diagnosis of Brucella spp infection but the gold standard test still remains the culture isolation of the organism. (Alton et al., 1988; Lulu et al., 1988). The contaminated vaginal discharges, organs of aborted fetuses such as lymph nodes, stomach content , milk secretions of infected animalshas been proved to be important source of isolation. Phage typing has been a very handy tool for species and biovars characterization alongwith biochemical tests (Godfroid et al., 2002, Singh et al., 2014)

There are many brucellosis tests have been published to determine accurate diagnosis of brucellosis. Different serological tests have been developed by keeping various goals in mind but the validation of all these tests is still an issue, the combination of different serological tests with appreciable specificity and sensitivity values can be utilized to know the status of animals (Ariza et al., 1992; Weynants et al., 1996). It is imperative to use both direct and indirect methods for accurate and reliable diagnosis of brucellosis (Carmichael and Greene, 1990; Wanke, 2004).

Many laboratories across the world are involved in developing sensitive and specific assays based on the molecular markers of Brucella spp in order to eradicate menace of brucellosis. This present review describes the different molecular markers which can be used for the development of molecular diagnostics along with the identification and characterization of Brucella to develop a reliable assay for the eradication of the brucellosis from animals and human population.

Molecular Genetics of Brucella Spp
For tracing the brucella infection biovar differentiation is an important parameter. Biovar/srain differentiation is required in many instances specially in the areas where many biotypes are circulating in the population. For this, there is a steady progress towards development of many differential assays despite of high level of conservation among Brucella species and strains. In the recent past, genomic data for comparison studies of B. suis, B. melitensis and B. abortus have been utilized. These studies revealed that each of this species have the average genome of 2.37 x 109 daltons. A total of 3198 ORFs have been detected in the B. melitensis strain 16M. (Del Vecchio et al., 2002).

There are many unique and variable genes are reported from the 3100 genes available from B.melitensis, which may be used as potential diagnostic markers for quick and reliable discrimination among different Brucella species. The availability of full–genome sequencing data of three Brucella biovars (B. abortus–941, B. suis–1330 and B. melitensis16 M) has given a flip for comparison of closely related Brucella spp. The identified unique genes or “differentiating genes” that has been successfully exploited as markers or targets to differentiate among Brucella strains by applying specific PCR assays are described ( Del Vecchio et al., 2002; Ratushna et al., 2006).

Detection of Brucella Spp by PCR
PCR based assays can be more handy in detection of Brucella spp. from pure microbial cultures. However, when dealing with suspected field samples, there may be decrease in the efficiency due to the presence of inhibitory substances like fat, nucleases, high concentration of divalent calcium ions, which would be directly interfering in the polymerase activity, thereby affecting the DNA amplification (Rossen et al., 1992; Wilson, 1997).

Genus–specific PCR for identification of brucella are proved to be simple and adequate. The diagnostic PCRs assays so far introduced in field animals for direct screening since the first application of PCR for Brucella diagnosis (Fekete et al., 1990; Rijpens et al., 1996; Amin et al., 2001; Leyla et al., 2003; O’Leary et al., 2006) various molecular marker gene viz; 16s rRNA, BCSP31, omp2, omp19, BP26, IS711 based assays are reported for genus specific identification of Brucella which are summarized in Table 1. For achieving better sensitivity some real time PCR assays have also been described (Queipo–Ortuno et al., 2005; Probert et al., 2004). For distinction between strain and biotypes and to ascertain the tandem repeats several assays are described. (Ewalt and Bricker, 2000; Bardenstein et al., 2002; Probert et al., 2004; Mukherjee et al., 2005; Ferrao–Beck et al., 2006; Bricker and Ewalt, 2006; Le Fleche et al., 2006) (Table 1).

AMOS PCR Assay for Brucella
The identification of brucella was precisely performed with various PCR assay. However, the need was to have an assay that can discriminate and different species in a same reaction. Based on five primers Bricker and Halling (1994) described an assay (Table 2) to identify selected biovars of four species of genus Brucella (AMOS– abortus, melitensis, ovis and suis). The assay was able to differentiate B. abortus (biovars 1, 2, and 4); B. melitensis (all three biovars), B. suis (biovars 1) and B. ovis (all biovars). Six bacterial species which are close to brucella viz Agrobacterium radiobacter, Agrobacterium rhizogenes, Ochrobactrum anthropi, Rhizobium leguminosarum, Rhizobium meliloti and Rhodospirillum rubrum were also differentiated based on this assay.

However, still the issue to discriminate vaccine strain was an issue. To achieve this in a single reaction Amos PCR assay was updated and updated AMOS assay (Bricker and Halling, 1995) was developed to differentiate two vaccine strains of Brucella abortus (strains S19 and RB51) with the addition of three new oligonucleotide primers (Table 2) and assay was designated as multiplex Brucella AMOS PCR assay (Bricker and Halling, 1995).

Multiplex PCR for one– step Identification of Brucella spp (Bruce–Ladder)
For rapid and one–step identification of Brucella, a novel multiplex PCR assay (Bruce–ladder) has been developed (Garcia–Yoldi, et al., 2006). This multiplex PCR assay has the cutting edge advantage compared to the previously described PCR assays, for identification and differentiation of most Brucella spp. including the vaccine strains in a single tube. The detail of molecular markers employed in this assay has been given in the table 3. Other than this many assays have been used for the detection of Brucella organisms (Table 4).

Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification PCR for Brucella Spp
Point–of–care diagnostics were applied in molecular diagnosis of Brucella spp. for its fast, reproducible, efficient, and highly sensitive results. The LAMP based diagnostic assay has been used in the diagnosis of Brucella spp., to harvest all the advantages in a molecular diagnostic coupled with point–of–care diagnosis. The LAMP protocol involves the use of Bst DNA polymerase with strand displacement activity and specially designed four primers identifying six regions in the gene (Notomi et al., 2000; Tomita et al., 2008).

The strand displacement activity of this enzyme attributes to a special property to this PCR–based assay viz. isothermal amplification managed using water–bath without need for any costly sophisticated equipment like thermocycler and gel–documentation. The total assay time in LAMP PCR was reduced to 30–60 minutes against the conventional PCR which takes around 2–3 hours, making a better candidate for a diagnostic assay. The specific primers identifying multiple regions in the gene increases the specificity of the assay whereas the use of additional loop primers enhances the sensitivity. The important determinant of this assay that makes it more appealing for its quality as a point–of–care diagnostic is the visual detection of results.

This has been made possible due to the large accumulation of pyrophosphate molecules along with the DNA product, and that was exploited by the addition of fluorophore dyes like Calcein and Manganous ion. In initial reaction conditions the calcein fluorescence is quenched by manganous ion, which in the later part binds to the accumulating pyrophosphate molecules, making the calcein to fluoresce, and that was augmented by its binding with divalent Magnesium ions, ideally captured by naked eye or hand–held UV source. Colorimetric detection is also possible by the addition of dyes like Hexa naphthol blue (HNB), which gives a violet color in negative samples and turns distinct sky blue in positive samples. The first report on LAMP PCR for detection of Brucella was from Ohtsuki et al., (2008), in which a BCSP31 gene based LAMP PCR assay was developed that could detect six Brucella species spanning across 22 strains, with a sensitivity of 10fg of brucella DNA detected from spiked samples, the assay conditions were 63°C for 35 minutes. For detection of Brucella spp., including B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. ovis, an OMP25 gene based LAMP assay was developed which was reported to have a very high sensitivity detecting Brucella as low as 1.3 x 103 CFU/ml in spiked milk samples with up to 10pg of genomic DNA per tube (Pan et al., 2011). The specificity in these tests were validated using DNA from other non–Brucella species, and were invariably found to be negative.

Other methods of PCR based identification of Brucella include a multi locus analysis of genome regions with a variable number of tandem repeats (MLVA) (Bricker et al., 2003) and multi locus sequencing of genome regions of the bacterial isolate (MLSA) (Fleche et al., 2006).These methods are based on the quantifying the number of tandem repeats in a particular locus of bacterial genome and are used for Brucella genotyping not only at the level of genus and species, but also biovars.

Antigens of Brucella Spp. as Molecular Signature
Many antigenic components of Brucella have been characterized from all the species. However, commonly used immunodominant antigen from brucella is the lipopolysaccharide (LPS). A number of other antigens like outer and inner membranes, cytoplasmic, and periplasmic proteins have also been characterized and are potential targets for diagnostic tests (Gupta et al., 2006a, 2006b). Some B cell response inducer Brucella antigens are depicted in figure 1.

Brucella consists of an outer layer of lipopolysaccharide–protein about 9 nm thick as an outer layer (Corbel, 1989). On culture media Brucella usually grow as either smooth or rough colony, with sometime mucoid type with some strains (Schurig et al., 2002). I addition to LPS, the outer membrane is also a rich source of several major proteins.

It is well known that due to presence of cross reacting epitopes lipopolysaccharide (LPS) has its limitation as potential diagnostic reagent. Because of these drawbacks with the anti–LPS antibodies, workers have renewed their interest in searching more specific antigens like OMPs and cytoplasmic proteins. Cloeckaert et al., 2002 classified outer membrane proteins of Brucella in group 2 which comparises of Omp2a and Omp2b (36 to 38 kDa) and group 3 which comparises of mainly Omp25 and Omp31 (25 to 27 and 31 to 34 kDa). Omp31 was initially cloned from B. melitensis16M, and found to possess significant homology (34% identity) with Brucella Omp25 (Vizcaíno et al., 1996; Cloeckaert et al., 2002). Due to 25–kb chromosomal deletion comprising omp31 and other genes Omp31 is not expressed in B. abortus . Some differences have been reported between Omp31 from B. melitensis and Omp31 from B. ovis (Cherwonogrodzky et al., 1988; Kittelbeger et al., 1998).

The antigens which provide the base for molecular signature of the bacteria in particular species have specific cellular and molecular function characteristic to that antigen. These mainly include outer membrane proteins (omp), Ribosome–releasingfactor (CP24), Heat shock protein(HtrA, DnaK), Lumazinesynthase (18–kDaprotein in B.ovis and B.canis), periplasmic or cytoplasmic protein (BP26(CP28)), Dihydrolipoamide Succinyltransferase, Malate dehydrogenase, SuccinylcoenzymeA, Synthetasealpha subunit ABC–typetransporter, Leu–Ile–Val–binding– protein precursor, Stress protein (ClpP) and Nickeltransport (NikA) as expressed in Figure 1. Although the protection studies with these antigenic markers revealed the protection only with Omp25 in mice against B. ovis and Omp31 in ram against B. ovis (Ko and Splitter, 2003).

Role of Molecular Diagnosis and Recombinant Proteins against Brucella Melitensis
Out of seven species of genus brucella, Brucella melitensis is mainly responsible for the zoonoses. Studies have been carried out regarding different recombinant proteins of Brucella melitensis. Evaluation of recombinant BP26 protein in different serological tests for diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection in goats is reported ( Gupta, et al., 2010). A DNA vaccine encoding outer membrane protein (OMP31) of Brucella melitensis 16M has been found protective against B. melitensis challenge in mice (Gupta, et al., 2007a; 2007b). These recombinant proteins have been successfully applied to improve specificity and sensitivity of the serological diagnostic methods. Moreover, Polymerase Chain Reaction assay has been standardized to amplify different molecular markers for the diagnosis of B melitensis infectionin goats (Figure 2). These genes can be employed for the molecular epidemiological investigation also (Gupta et al., 2010). The primers designed vary upon the target and specific size amplicon products elucidate in electrophoresis are used for the confirmation of B. melitensis.

Various Methods Applied for the Molecular Detection of Brucella Spp
The molecular targets/signatures of Brucella spp. is largely based on the genomic variations in different biovars. Although, the differentiating genes and conserved targets can be used for future diagnostics but it requires further evaluation in domestic animals. The gold standard test for Brucellosis still is isolation of Brucella spp. from infected animal. Different molecular markers based assay have been developed and established for rapid, confirmatory and precise diagnosis of brucellosis in clinical samples with minimum time (Table 5).

PCR–based methods that identify these molecular markers are more useful and practical as other assays are still in validation process and will take time to be an established assay for brucellosis. PCR–based methods that are simple, quick, less hazardous and possess high sensitivity (Bricker, 2002, Singh et al., 2013) for Brucella detection, especially those using the 16S rRNA as targets (Herman and De Ridder, 1992; Romero et al., 1995; O’Leary et al., 2006), and the bcsp31 genes (Baily et al., 1992; Singh et al., 2014), which are highly conserved in the genus Brucella.

CONCLUSION

Most of the markers explained herein are in context of PCR assay for the diagnosis. But these markers may be potential candidate genes for developing recombinant proteins for the diagnostics and vaccines. Most of the new methods for Brucella spp. identification and typing are still in the process of development and still await validation for use with clinical samples. Controll and eradication of animal brucellosis in countries like India requires serious effort to provide infrastructure to provide awareness among livestock owners, farmers, animal husbandry workers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and facilities provided by the Director, CIRG, Mathura and Vice Chancellor, DUVASU, Mathura.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is no conflict of interest among authors.

REFERENCES

Adone R, Francia M and Ciuchini F (2008). Evaluation of Brucella melitensis B115 as rough–phenotype vaccine against B. melitensis and B. ovis infections. Vaccine 26: 4913–4917.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.030
PMid:18675869

Alton GG, Jones LM, Angus RD and Verger JM (1988). Techniques for the Brucellosis Laboratory. Paris: Institute National DeLa Recherche Agronomique.

Amin AS, Hamdy ME andIbrahim AK (2001). Detection of Brucella melitensis in semen using the polymerase chain reaction assay. Vet(Vet Microbiol)83: 37–44.

Ariza J, Pellicer T, Pallares R, Foz A, Gudiol F (1992) Specific antibody profile in human brucellosis. Clinicalectious Diseases (clinc infect diseases)14: 131–140.

Baily GG, Krahn JB, Drasar BS, Stocker NG (1992). Detection of Brucella melitensis and abortus by DNA amplification. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygine.(J Trop Med Hygene) 95: 271–275.
PMid:1495123

Bardenstein S, Mandelboim M, Ficht TA, Baum M, Banai M (2002) Identification of the Brucella melitensis vaccine strain Rev 1 in animals and humans in Israel by PCR analysis of the Pst 1 site polymorphism of its Omp 2 gene. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clic Microbiol). 40: 1475–1480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.2.1475-1480.2002
PMid:11923376 PMCid:PMC140367

Bogdanovich T, Skurnik M, Lubeck PS, Ahren P, Hoorfar J (2004) Validated 5' nuclease PCR assay for rapid identification of the genus Brucella. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinc Microbiol)42: 2261–2263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.5.2261-2263.2004
PMid:15131207 PMCid:PMC404622

Bricker BJ (2002) PCR as a diagnostic tool for brucellosis. Veterinary Microbiology (Vet Microbiol)90: 435–446.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00228-6

Bricker BJ, Ewalt DR (2006) Hoof prints: Brucella strain typing by PCR amplification of multilocus tandem–repeat polymorphisms. Methods of Molecular Biology(Methods Mol Microbiol) 345: 141–173.
PMid:16957354

Bricker BJ, Ewalt DR, Halling SM (2003) Brucella 'HOOF–Prints': Strain Typing by Multi–Locus Analysis of Variable Number Tandem Repeats (VNTRs). BMC Microbiology. 3: 15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-3-15
PMid:12857351 PMCid:PMC183870

Bricker BJ, Ewalt DR, Olsen SC (2003) Evaluation of the Brucella abortus species specific PCR, an improved version of brucella AMOS PCR assay for cattle. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation(J Vet Diagnos Invest) 15: 374–378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104063870301500413
PMid:12918821

Bricker BJ, Halling SM (1994) Differentiation of Brucella abortus bv. 1, 2, and 4 Brucella melitensis, Brucella ovis, and Brucella suis bv. 1 by PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinc Microbiol)32: 2660–2666.
PMid:7852552 PMCid:PMC264138

Bricker BJ, Halling SM (1995) Enhancement of the Brucella AMOS PCR assay for differentiation of Brucella abortus vaccine strains S19 and RB51. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic Microbiol) 33:1640.
PMid:7650203 PMCid:PMC228233

Carmichael LE, Greene CE (1990) Canine Brucellosis In: Infectious diseases of the Dog and Cat. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders Company. pp. 573–584.

Chen S, Li X, Li J, Atwill ER (2013) Rapid detection of Brucella spp. using loop–mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Methods of Molecular Biology(Methods Mol Biol) 1039:99–108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-535-4_8
PMid:24026689

Cherwonogrodzky JW, Nielsen KH (1988) Brucella abortus1119–3 0–chain polysaccharide to differentiate sera from B. abortus S–19–vaccinated and field–strain–infected cattle by agar gel immunodiffusion. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic Microbiol) 26:1120–1123.
PMid:3133389 PMCid:PMC266545

Cloeckaert A, Verger JM, Grayon M, Grepinet O (1995). Restriction site polymorphism of the genes encoding the major 25kDa and 36kDa outer membrane proteins of Brucella. Microbiology(Microbiol) 141: 2111–2121

Cloeckaert A, Verger JM, Grayon M, Vizcaíno N (1996). Molecular and immunological characterization of the major outer membrane proteins of Brucella. FEMS Microbiology Letters 145:1–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1996.tb08547.x
PMid:8931319

Cloeckaert A, Vizcaíno NJ, Paquet Y, Bowden RA, Elzer PH (2002) Major outer membrane proteins of Brucella spp. past, present and future. Veterinary Microbiology(Vet Microbiol) 90:229–247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00211-0

Corbel MJ (1989) Microbiology of the Genus Brucella. In: Young Edward J, Corbel Michael J Brucellosis: Clinical Laboratory Aspects. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Pp. 53 – 72.

Cutler S, Whatmore A (2003) Progress in understanding brucellosis. Veterinary Record (Vet Rec)153: 641–642.
PMid:14667083

Da Costa M, Guillou JP, Garin–Bastuji B, Thie’baud M, Dubray G (1996) Specificity of six gene sequences for the detection of the genus Brucella by DNA amplification. Journal of Applied Bacteriology (J App Bacteriol)81: 267–275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1996.tb04328.x
PMid:8810054

Del Vecchio VG, Kapatral V, Redkar RJ, Patra G, Mujer C, Los T, Ivanova N, Anderson I, Bhattacharyya A, Lykidis A, Reznik G, Jablonski L, Larsen N, D'Souza M, Bernal A, Mazur M, Goltsman E, Selkov E, Elzer PH, Hagius S, O'Callaghan D, Letesson JJ, Haselkorn R, Kyrpides N, Overbeek R (2002) The genome sequence of the facultative intracellular pathogen Brucella melitensis. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (Proc Ntional Acad Sci) 99: 443–448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.221575398
PMid:11756688 PMCid:PMC117579

Doganay GD, Doganay M (2013). Brucella as a potential agent of bioterrorism. Recent Pat Anti infections Drug Discovery 8(1):27–33

Edelstein RL, Tamanaha CR, Sheehan PE, Miller MM, Baselt DR, Whitman LJ, Colton RJ (2000) The BARC biosensor applied to the detection of biological warfare agents. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 14: 805–813.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5663(99)00054-8

Ewalt DR, Bricker BJ (2000) Validation of the Abbreviated Brucella AMOS PCR as a Rapid screening method for differentiation of Brucella abortus field strain isolates and the vaccine strains, 19 and RB51. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)38(8): 3085–3086.
PMid:10921983 PMCid:PMC87192

Fekete A, Bantle JA, Halling SM (1992a) Detection of brucella by polymerase chain reaction in bovine fetal and maternal tissues. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation(J Vet Diagnos Invest) 4: 79–83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104063879200400118
PMid:1554774

Fekete A, Bantle JA, Halling SM, Sanborn MR (1990). Priliminary development of a diagnostic test for Brucella using Polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Applied Bacteriology (J Appl Bacteriol)69: 216–227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb01512.x
PMid:2272943

Fekete A, Bantle JA, Halling SM, Stich RW (1992b) Amplification fragment length polymorphism in Brucella strains by use of polymerase chain reaction with arbitrary primers. Journal of Bacteriology (J App Bacteriol)174: 7778–7783.
PMid:1360006 PMCid:PMC207493

Fernández–Lago L, Vallejo FJ, Trujillano I, Vizcaíno N (2000) Fluorescent whole–cell hybridization with 16S rRNA–targeted oligonucleotide probes to identify Brucella spp. by flow cytometry. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)38:2768–2771.
PMid:10878084 PMCid:PMC87026

Ferrao–Beck L, Cardoso R, Munoz PM, de Miguel MJ, Albert D, Ferreira AC, Marin CM, Thiebaud M, Jacques I (2006). Development of a multiplex PCR assay for polymorphism analysis of Brucella suis biovars causing brucellosis in swine. VeterinMicrobiology (Vet Microbiol)115: 269–277.

Ficht TA, Bearden SW, Sowa BA, Adams LG (1989). DNA sequence and expression of the 36–kilodalton outer membrane protein gene of Brucella abortus. Infections and Immunity (Infect Immun)57:3281–3291.
PMid:2509359 PMCid:PMC259799

Foster G, Osterman BS, Godfroid J, Jacques I, Cloeckaert A, (2007) Brucella ceti sp. nov. and Brucella pinnipedialis sp. nov. for Brucella strains with cetaceans and seals as their preferred hosts. International Journal of Systemic Evolutionary Microbiology(Int J Syst Evol Microbiol) 57: 2688–2693.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65269-0
PMid:17978241

Garcia–yoldi D, Marin CM, De Miguel PM, Munoz PM, Vizmanos JL, Lopez–goni I (2006) Multiplex PCR assay for the identification and differentiation of all Brucella species and the vaccine strains Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 and Brucella melitensis Rev1. Clinical Chemistry(Clinic Chem) 52: 779–781.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.062596
PMid:16595839

Godfroid J, Saegerman C, Wellemans V, Walravens K, Letesson JJ, Tibor A, McMillan A, Spencer M, Sanna S, Bakker D, Pouillot R, Garin–Bastuji B (2002) How to substantiate eradication of bovine brucellosis when a specific serological reactions occur in the course of brucellosis testing. Veterinary Microbiology(Vet Microbiol) 90: 461–477.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00230-4

Gupta VK (2010) Annual Report. Central Institute for research on goats (CIRG). Makhdoom, PO. Farah, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 122.

Gupta VK, Kumari R, Vohra J, Singh SV, Vihan VS (2010) Comparative evaluation of recombinant BP26 protein for serological diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection in goats. Small Ruminant Research(Small Ruminant Res) 93: 119–125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2010.05.009

Gupta VK, Rout PK, Vihan VS (2007b) Induction of immune response in mice with a DNA vaccine encoding outer membrane protein (OMP31) of Brucella melitensis 16M. Research in Veterinary Sciences(Res Vet Sci) 87: 305–313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2006.07.014
PMid:17014873

Gupta VK, Verma DK, Rout PK, Singh SV, Vihan VS (2006a) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of Brucella melitensis in goat milk. Small Ruminant Research (Small Ruminant Res)65: 79–84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.05.024

Gupta VK, Verma DK, Singh K, Kumari R, Singh SV, Vihan VS (2006b) Single–step PCR for detection of Brucella melitensis from tissue and blood of goats. Small Ruminant Research(Res) 66: 169–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.09.001

Gupta VK, Verma DK, Singh SV, Vihan VS (2007a) Serological diagnostic potential of recombinant outer membrane protein (Omp31) from Brucella melitensis in goat and sheep brucellosis. Small Ruminant Research (Res)70: 260–266
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.01.012

Herman L, De Ridder H (1992) Identification of Brucella spp. by suing the polymerase chain reaction. Applied Environmental Microbiology(App Envir Microbiol) 58: 2099–2101.
PMid:1377903 PMCid:PMC195734

Jumas–Bilak E, Michaux–Charachon S, Bourg G, Ramuz M, Allardet–Servent A (1998) Unconventional genomic organization in the alpha–subgroup of the Proteobacteria. Journal of Bacteriology(J Bacteriol) 180: 2749– 2755.
PMid:9573163 PMCid:PMC107230

Jumas–Bitlak E, Maugard C, Michaux–Charachon, S, Allardet–Servent A, Perrin A, O'Callaghan D (1995) Study of the organization of the genomes of Escherichia coli, Brucella melitensis and Agrobacterium tumefaciens by insertion of a unique restriction site. Microbiology(Microbiol) 141: 2425–2432.

Kang SI, Her M, Kim JW, Kim JY, Ko KY, Ha YM, Jung SC (2011) Advanced multiplex PCR assay for differentiation of Brucella species. Applied Environmental Microbiology (App Envir Microbiol)77:6726–6728.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00581-11
PMid:21666028 PMCid:PMC3187128

Kittelbeger R, Diack DS, Vizcaino N, Zygmunt MS, Cloeckaert A (1998) Characterization of an immuno–dominant antigen in Brucella ovis and evaluation of its use in an enzyme– linked Immunosorbent assay. Veterinary Microbiology (Vet Microbiol)59: 213–227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(97)00196-X

Ko J, Splitter GA (2003). Molecular host–pathogen interaction in brucellosis: current understanding and future approaches to vaccine development for mice and humans. Clinical Microbiology Review(Clinic Microbiol Rev) 16: 65–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/CMR.16.1.65-78.2003
PMid:12525425 PMCid:PMC145300

Le Fleche F, Jacques I, Grayon M, Al Dahouk S, Bouchon P, Denoeud F, Nöckler K, Neubauer H, Guilloteau LA, Vergnaud G (2006) Evaluation and Selection of Tandem Repeat Loci for a Brucella MLVA Typing Assay. BMC Microbiology(Microbiol) 6:9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-6-9
PMid:16469109 PMCid:PMC1513380

Le Flèche P, Jacques I, Grayon M, Dahouk Sal, Bouchon P, Denoeud F, Nöckler K, Neubauer H, Guilloteau LA, Vergnaud G (2006) Evaluation and selection of tandem repeat loci for a Brucella MLVA typing assay. BMC Microbiology (Microbiol)6:9.

Leal–Klevezas DS, Martinez VIO, Lopez MA, Martinez SJP (1995) Single step PCR for detection of Brucella spp. from blood and milk of infected animals. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic Microbiol) 3: 3087–3090.

Lee WE, Thompson HG, Hall JG, Bader DE (2000) Rapid detection and identification of biological and chemical agents by immunoassay, gene probe assay and enzyme inhibition using a silicon–based biosensor. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 14:795–804.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5663(99)00059-7

Leyla G, Kadri G, Umarn O (2003) Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and bacteriological culture for the diagnosis of sheep brucellosis using aborted fetus samples. Veterinary Microbiology(Vet Microbiol) 93: 53–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00442-X

Lin GZ, Zheng FY, Zhou JZ, Gong XW, Wang GH, Cao XA, Qiu CQ (2011) Loop–mediated isothermal amplification assay targeting the omp25 gene for rapid detection of Brucella spp. Molecular Cell Probes(Mol Cell Probes) 25:126–129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2011.01.001
PMid:21232598

Lulu AR, Araz GF, Khatib MI, Mustafa MY, Yusuf AR, Fenech FF (1988) Human brucellosis in Kuwait: a prospective study of 400 cases. Quaternary Journal of Medicine (J Med)66: 39–54.

Manish K, Chand P, Rajesh C, Teena R, Sunil K (2013) Brucellosis: An updated review of the disease. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences(Indian J Anim Sci) 83: 3–16.

Mantur BG, Amarnath SK (2008) Brucellosis in India a review. Journal of Biosciences(J BioSci) 33:539–547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12038-008-0072-1
PMid:19208979

Michaux S, Paillisson J, Carles–Nurit MJ, Bourg G, Allardet–Servent A, Ramuz M (1993) Presence of two independent chromosomes in the Brucella melitensis 16M genome. Journal of Bacteriology (J Bacteriol)175: 701–705.
PMid:8423146 PMCid:PMC196208

Morata P, Queipo–Ortuno M.I, Reguera JM, Garcia–Ordonez MA, Cardenas A, Colmenero JD (2003) Development and evaluation of a PCR–enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of human brucellosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic microbial) 41:144–148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.41.1.144-148.2003
PMCid:PMC149602

Moriyon I, Grillo MJ, Monreal D, Gonzalez D, Marin C, Lopez–Goni I, Mainar–Jaime RC, Moreno E, Blasco JM (2004). Rough vaccines in animal brucellosis: structural and genetic basis and present status. Veterinary Research(Vet Res) 35: 1–38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2003037
PMid:15099501

Mukherjee F, Jain J, Grillo MJ, Blasco JM, Nair M (2005) Evaluation of Brucella abortus S19 vaccine strains by bacteriological tests, molecular analysis of ery loci and virulence in BALB/c mice. Biologicals 33, 153–160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2005.04.003
PMid:16081301

Mukherjee F, Jain J, Patel V, Nair M (2007) Multiple genus–specific markers in PCR assays improve the specificity and sensitivity of diagnosis of brucellosis in field animals. Journal of Medical Microbiology (J Med Microbiol)56:1309–1316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.47160-0
PMid:17893166

Mu-oz PM, Mariana B, Arnal M, J de Miguel M, Revilla M, Martínez D, Vicente J, Acevedo P, Oleaga A, Ruiz–Fons F, Marín CM, Prieto JM, de la Fuente J, Barral M, Barberán M, de Luco DF, Blasco JM, Gortázar C (2010) Spatial distribution and risk factors of Brucellosis in Iberian wild ungulates. BMC Infectious Diseases(Infect Disesses) 10: 46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-46
PMid:20205703 PMCid:PMC2841660

Navarro E, Casao MA, Solera J (2004) Diagnosis of human brucellosis using PCR. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnosis(Exp Rev Mol Diagn)4:115–123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14737159.4.1.115
PMid:14711354

Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, Yonekawa T, Watanabe K, Amino N, Hase T (2000) Loop–mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Research(Res) 28, E63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.12.e63

O'Leary S, Sheahan M, Sweeney T (2006) Brucella abortus detection by PCR assay in blood, milk and lymph tissue of serologically positive cows. Research in Veterinary Sciences (Res Vet Sci)81: 170–176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2005.12.001
PMid:16545848

Ohtsuki R, Kawamoto K, Kato Y, Shah MM, Ezaki T, Makino SI (2008) Rapid detection of Brucella spp. by the loop–mediated isothermal amplification method. Journal of Applied Microbiology (J App Microbiol)104:1815–23
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03732.x
PMid:18248366

OIE (2009) Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines. Paris: Office international des epizooties(OIE).

Pan W, Wang JY, Shen HY, Zhao MQ, Ju CM, Dong XY, Yi L, Chen JD (2011) Development and application of the novel visual Loop–mediated isothermal amplification of Omp25 sequence for rapid detection of Brucella sp. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances (J Anim Vet Adv)10: 2120–2126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2011.2120.2126

Paulsen IT, Seshadri R, Nelson KE, Eisen JA, Heidelberg JF, Read TD, Dodson RJ, Umayam L, Brinkac LM, Beanan MJ (2002) The Brucella suis genome reveals fundamental similarities between animal and plant pathogens and symbionts. Proceedings of national Academy of Sciences(Proc National Acad Sci). 99:13148–13153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192319099
PMid:12271122 PMCid:PMC130601

Probert WS, Schrader KN, Khuong NY, Bystrom SL, Graves MH (2004) Real–time Multiplex PCR Assay for Detection of Brucella spp., B. abortus, and B. melitensis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic Microbiol) 42: 1290–1293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.3.1290-1293.2004
PMCid:PMC356861

Queipo–Ortu-o MI, Colmenero JD, Bravo MJ, García–Ordo-ez MA, Morata P (2008) Usefulness of a quantitative real–time PCR assay using serum samples to discriminate between inactive, serologically positive and active humanbrucellosis. Clinical Microbiology of Infections(Clinic Microbiol Infect) 14:1128–1134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02095.x
PMid:19046166

Queipo–Ortuno, MI, Colmenero JD, Baeza G, Morata P (2005) Comparison between Light cycler real–time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay with serum and PCR enzyme–linked immunosorbent assay with whole blood samples for the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases (Clinic Infect Diseases)40: 260–264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/426818
PMid:15655745

Radostits OM, Blood DC, Gay CC (editors) (1994) A text book of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses, 8th edn. Veterinary Medicine(Vet Med). Baillie`reTindall.789–812.

Ratushna VG, Sturgill DM, Ramamoorthy S, Reichow SA, He Y, Lathigra R, Sriranganathan N, Halling SM, Boyle SM, Gibas CJ (2006). Molecular targets for rapid identification of Brucella spp. BMC Microbiology(Microbiol) 6:13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-6-13
PMid:16504063 PMCid:PMC1413539

Redkar R, Rose S, Bricker B, DelVecchio, V (2001). Real–time detection of Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis, and Brucella suis. Molecular Cellular Probes(Mol Cellu Probes) 15:43–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mcpr.2000.0338
PMid:11162079

Rigby CE, Fraser AD (1989) Plasmid transfer and plasmid–mediated genetic exchange in Brucella abortus. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research(CJ Vet Res) 53: 326–330.
PMid:2504476 PMCid:PMC1255719

Rijpens NP, Jannes G, Van Asbroeck M, Rossau R, Herman LM (1996) Direct detection of Brucella spp. in raw milk by PCR and reverse hybridization with 16S–23S rRNA spacer probes. Applied Environmental Microbiology (App Envir Microbiol)62: 1683–1688.
PMid:8633866 PMCid:PMC167942

Romero C, Gamazo C, Pardo M, Lopez–Go-i I (1995) Specific detection of Brucella DNA by PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)33: 615–617.
PMid:7538508 PMCid:PMC227999

Romero C, Pardo M, Grilló MJ, Díaz R, Blasco JM, Lopez–Go-i I (1995b) Evaluation of PCR and indirect enzyme–linked immunosorbent assay on milk samples for diagnosis of brucellosis in dairy cattle. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J Clinic Microbiol) 33: 3198–3200.
PMid:8586702 PMCid:PMC228673

Rossen L, Norskov P, Holmstrom K, Rasmussen OF (1992) Inhibition of PCR by components of food samples, microbial diagnostic assays and DNA–extraction solutions. International Journal of Food Microbiology (Int J Food Microbiol)17: 37–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1605(92)90017-W

Sanchez DO, Zandomeni RO, Cravero S, Verdun RE, Pierrou E, Faccio P, Diaz G, Lanzavecchia S, Aguero F, Frasch AC (2001) Gene discovery through genomic sequencing of Brucella abortus. Infection and Immunity(Infect Immun) 69: 865–868.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.69.2.865-868.2001
PMid:11159979 PMCid:PMC97963

Schmoock G, Ehricht R, Melzer F, Elschner M, Tomaso H, Neubauer H, Al Dahouk S (2011) Development of a diagnostic multiplex polymerase chain reaction micro array assay to detect and differentiate Brucella spp. Diagnostic Microbiologyogy of Infectious Diseases(Diagnos Infect Diseases) 71:341–53
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.08.013
PMid:21982564

Scholz HC, Hubalek Z, Sedlacek I, Vergnaud G, Tomaso H, Al Dahouk S, Melzer F, Kampfer P, Neubauer H, Cloeckaert A, Maquart M, Zygmunt MS, Whatmore AM, Falsen E, Bahn P, Gollner C, Pfeffer M, Huber B, Busse HJ, Nockler K (2008) Brucella microti sp. nov., isolated from the common vole Microtus arvalis. International Journal of Systemic and Evolutionary Microbiology (Int J Syst Evol Microbiol)58: 375–382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65356-0
PMid:18218934

Schurig GC, Sriranganathan N, Corbel MJ (2002) Brucellosis vaccines: past, present and future. Veterinary Microbiology(Vet Microbiol) 90: 479–496.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00255-9

A, Gupta VK, Kumar A, Singh VK, Shivasaranappa N (2013). 16S rRNA and Omp31gene based molecular characterization of field strains of B. melitensis from aborted foetus of goats in India. The Scientific World Journal. 2013, Article no. 160376, 7 pages.

Singh A, Gupta VK, Kumar A, Singh VK, Shivasaranappa N (2014) Omp31gene based molecular detection of B. melitensis from serum samples of goats. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences (Indian J Anim Sci)(In Press).

Soleimani M, Shams S, Majidzadeh–A K. 2013. Developing a real–time quantitative loop–mediated isothermal amplification assay as a rapid and accurate method for detection of Brucellosis. Journal of Applied Microbiology (J App Microbiol)115:828–834.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.12290
PMid:23795718

Song L, Li J, Hou S, Li X, Chen S (2012) Establishment of loop–mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for rapid detection of Brucella spp. and application to milk and blood samples. Journal of Microbiology Methods(J Microbiol Methods) 90:292–297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2012.05.024
PMid:22688008

Sreevatsan S, Bookout JB, Ringpis F, Perumaalla VS, Fitch TA, Adams LG, Haguis SD, Elzer PH, Bricker BJ (2000) A multiplex approach to molecular detection of Brucella abortus and/or Mycobacterium B. ovis infection in cattle. Journal of Clinical Microbiology(J clinic Microbiol) 38: 2602–2610.
PMid:10878051 PMCid:PMC86978

Tian M, Qu J, Han X, Zhang M, Ding C, Ding J, Chen G, Yu S. 2013. Microarray–based identification of differentially expressed genes in intracellular Brucella abortus within RAW264.7 cells. PLoS One. 8:e67014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067014
PMid:23950864 PMCid:PMC3737221

Tomita N, Mori Y, Kanda H, Notomi T (2008) Loop–mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) of gene sequences and simple visual detection of products. Natural Protocols 3: 877– 882.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2008.57
PMid:18451795

Verger JM, Grimont F, Grimont PA, Grayon M (1987) Taxonomy of the genus Brucella. Ann. Inst. Pasteur Microbiology (Microbiol)138: 235–238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0769-2609(87)90199-2

Viadas C, Rodríguez MC, García–Lobo JM, Sangari FJ, López–Go-i I (2009) Construction and evaluation of an ORFeome–based Brucella whole–genome DNA microarray. Microbes Pathology(Pathol). 47:189–195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2009.06.002
PMid:19524659

Vizcaíno N, Cloeckaert A, Zygmunt MS, Dubray G (1996) Cloning, nucleotide sequence, and expression of the Brucella melitensis omp31 gene coding for an immunogenic major outer membrane protein. Infection and Immunity(Infect Immun) 64:3744–3751.
PMid:8751924 PMCid:PMC174288

Wanke MM (2004). Canine brucellosis. Animal Reproduction Science (Anim Prod Sci)82/83: 195–207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2004.05.005
PMid:15271453

Wellinghausen N, Nöckler K, Sigge A, Bartel M, Essig A, Poppert S (2006) Rapid detection of Brucella spp. in blood cultures by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)44:1828–1830.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.44.5.1828-1830.2006
PMid:16672413 PMCid:PMC1479171

Weynants V, Tibor A, Denoel PA, Saegerman C, Godfroid J, Thiange P, Letesson JJ (1996) Infection of cattle with Yersinia enterocolitica O: 9 a cause of the false positive serological reactions in bovine brucellosis diagnostic tests. Veterinary Microbiology(Vet Microbiol) 48: 101–112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(95)00153-0

Wilson IG (1997). Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Applied Environmental Microbiology(App Envir Microbiol) 63: 3741–3751.
PMid:9327537 PMCid:PMC168683

Winchell JM, Wolff BJ, Tiller R, Bowen MD, Hoffmaster AR (2010) Rapid identification and discrimination of Brucella isolates by use of real–time PCR and high–resolution melt analysis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)48:697–702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02021-09
PMid:20053863 PMCid:PMC2832424

Yagupsky P. (1994) Detection of Brucella melitensis by BACTEC NR660 blood culture system. Journal of Clinical Microbiology (J Clinic Microbiol)32: 1899–1901.
PMid:7989539 PMCid:PMC263899