In this study, a total of 470 samples from 203 cattle and 59 buffaloes were collected including 262 serum samples from 203 cattle and 59 buffaloes which were screened for seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis using RBPT, STAT and I-ELISA. The overall seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis was found to be 9.92%, 16.03%, 6.48% by RBPT, STAT and I-ELISA respectively. The distribution of antibodies against Brucella antigen varied significantly between cattle and buffalo, according to a species-wise seroprevalence investigation (Table 2). By RBPT, STAT and I-ELISA, the seroprevalence in cattle was 11.82 per cent, 16.25 per cent and 8.37 per cent, whereas it was 3.38 per cent, 15.25 percent and 0 per cent in buffalo serum samples. As a result, cattle had a higher prevalence of the disease than buffalo, but there was no difference that was statistically significant (p=0.0565). According to I-ELISA,
Kebede et al., (2008) (11%),
Eshetu et al., (2005) (10%) and
Aggad and Boukra (2006) (9.7%) observed almost identical seroprevalences of bovine brucellosis. There have been reports of higher prevalence rates in cattle (10.74%).
Ahmad et al., (2009) (25.7%) in Jordan,
Mishra et al. (2022) in India,
Junaidu et al., (2011) in Nigeria and Ahmad
et al (32.2 per cent ). In agreement with the results of this study, studies by
Krishnamoorthy et al., (2015) and
Tragandi et al., (2015) estimated the prevalence of I-ELISA to be 11.63 per cent in Southern India, 6.8 per cent in Andhra Pradesh, 8.2 per cent in Gujrat and 2.3 per cent in Odisha.
Kassahun (2004) observed somewhat lower prevalence rates for intensive (2.5%) and extensive farms (1.7%) in Southern Ethiopia, whereas
Berhe et al., (2007) reported slightly higher prevalence rates (3.19%) for extensive agricultural systems in Algeria.
Molecular detection
Serum (100 samples), whole blood (108 samples) and milk (100 samples) were subjected to PCR assay and amplicons of 223 bp of
Brucella bcsp 31 gene (genus specific Fig 1)
Baily et al., (1992) and 498 bp of
Brucella species specific IS711 (Fig 2) gene
(Bricker and Halling, 1994) were obtained. Out of 100 serum samples, none was by PCR while out of 108 whole blood samples, 3 and from 100 milk samples, 2 were found positive by PCR (Fig 1). None of the serum samples yielded DNA which implied that
Brucella organism was not present in the serum of those animals even though the antibody titre was quite high leading to positive results in serology
Singh et al., (2010). Various PCR procedures have been developed for the detection of
Brucella (Probert et al., 2004; Tanmay, 2007; Zamain et al., 2015). B.
abortus is an intracellular bacteria and this poses a problem for selection of a suitable sample
(Wattam et al., 2009). Only during acute phase of infection, it circulates in blood, mostly inside the white blood cells and hides itself in mammary organs, genital organs and lymph nodes
(Morgan and Mackinnon, 1979) hence sample should be selected according to the phase of Brucella’s life cycle which is not practically possible to find out. The wide variation in the number of samples detected as positive by RBPT (26), STAT (42), ELISA (17) and PCR (5) might be due to many factors. Whole blood was found to be the better sample out of serum, whole blood and milk for DNA extraction to perform PCR assay as DNA might have been in very low or negligible quantity in serum and in milk, presence of fat globules and other proteins might have inhibited the DNA yield.
Karthik et al., (2014) also performed bcsp 31 gene based PCR and species specific IS711 gene based PCR using whole blood samples to detect 15.13% positivity. Their results indicated that whole blood can be used for studying the molecular epidemiology of
B.
abortus in bovine and particularly detecting the active phase of infection. Further, at the time of equilibrium of host parasite interaction, the
Brucella may persist in circulation for some time before getting localized in their preferred sites. Similar results that DNA can be extracted from whole blood and used as a sample for screening for brucellosis has been reported by
Guarino et al., (2000) in buffaloes,
Keid et al., (2010) in dogs and
Khamesipour et al., (2013) in cattle and sheep.
Nakkas et al., (2002) and
Leal-Klevezas et al., (2000) used buffy coat instead of whole blood for DNA extraction as macrophages take up brucellae but it needs additional steps
(Mitka et al., 2007) and hence the use of whole blood as such was tried in this study with better results. Use of commercially available kits have been said to have improved the quality as well as the quantity of extracted DNA
(Queipo-Ortuno et al., 2008; Keid et al., 2010) as compared to conventional DNA extraction method.
Alamian et al., (2017) described a novel PCR assay for detecting
Brucella abortus.
Daugaliyeva et al., (2016) developed a differential PCR assay for detection of
Brucella abortus.
Orizil et al., (2016) conducted a multiplex PCR technique for detection of
Brucella spp.
Hemande and Gandge (2016) showed that PCR-SSCP is more sensitive than PCR-RFLP for detection of polymorphism in bcsp31 gene.
Arasoglu et al., (2013) detected
Brucella genus specific bcsp31 PCR from tested milk samples. In a study by
Rekha et al., (2013), none of the samples of blood, milk and serum were positive for brucellosis. Various factors like time of sample collection, infection status of the animal, condition of farm, number of samples collected can influence the results. The better molecular diagnostic approach for screening of field animals and for increased sensitivity and higher specificity or more than one marker-based PCR could be used.