Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 91, Issue 10 , Pages 3779-3786, October 2008

Evaluation of Molecular Methods for the Detection of Brucella Species in Water Buffalo Milk

  • C. Marianelli

      Affiliations

    • Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria e Sicurezza Alimentare, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • A. Martucciello

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Sezione Diagnostica Provinciale di Salerno, Centro di Referenza Nazionale sull’igiene e le tecnologie dell’allevamento e delle produzioni bufaline, Via delle Calabrie 27, 84132 Fuorni-Salerno, Italy
    • ,
  • M. Tarantino

      Affiliations

    • Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria e Sicurezza Alimentare, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
    • ,
  • R. Vecchio

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Sezione Diagnostica Provinciale di Salerno, Centro di Referenza Nazionale sull’igiene e le tecnologie dell’allevamento e delle produzioni bufaline, Via delle Calabrie 27, 84132 Fuorni-Salerno, Italy
    • ,
  • G. Iovane

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Via Della Salute 2, 80055 Portici-Napoli, Italy
    • ,
  • G. Galiero

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Via Della Salute 2, 80055 Portici-Napoli, Italy

Received 4 April 2008; accepted 6 June 2008.

Article Outline

Abstract 

Brucellosis is a highly infectious disease affecting both animals and humans. The current standard tools for the diagnosis of this bacterial infection are serological and microbiological. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of molecular assays as diagnostic tools for the detection of Brucella spp. in water buffalo milk. For this purpose, we first compared different DNA extraction protocols and PCR methods on artificially spiked milk samples. The most sensitive methods were then used to examine milk from serologically positive and negative water buffaloes. Molecular results were compared with serological and bacteriological test results. Milk samples from 53 Brucella seropositive buffaloes (by either rose Bengal or complement fixation test) were positive by ELISA, 37 were positive by culture, 33 were positive by PCR, and 35 were positive by real-time PCR. Of the 37 culture-positive samples, a total of 25 and 26 were positive by PCR and real-time PCR, respectively. Of the 16 culture-negative samples, 8 were positive by PCR and 9 by real-time PCR. Thus, although culture showed greater sensitivity than PCR, some animals found positive by serological methods and PCR tested negative by milk culture. The combined use of bacteriological and molecular tools increased the number of positive samples to 46. In conclusion, these results suggest that the simultaneous application of these 2 direct detection methods (culture and PCR) could be more useful than one test alone for the diagnosis of Brucella spp. in buffalo milk.

Key words: Brucella spp, buffalo milk, DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

Brucellosis is a zoonosis with serious implications for both humans and animals, affecting predominantly sexually mature individuals. The main clinical symptoms of infection are abortion in females, and orchitis and epididymitis with frequent sterility in males, due to the localization of brucellae within the female and male reproductive organs. The disease is transmitted by direct contact with infectious excretions, by ingestion, by the venereal route, or, less commonly, via the conjunctiva or by inhalation. Large numbers of brucellae can be excreted in fetal fluids and mammary secretions (Enright, 1990). The causative agents of brucellosis in ruminants are Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis (Corbel and MacMillan, 1998).

Early detection by valid diagnostic tools is crucial for the control and eradication of this disease. Currently, the diagnosis of brucellosis in live dairy cattle involves either the detection of anti-Brucella antibodies in serum or milk or the isolation of Brucella from milk samples (Alton et al., 1988).

Serological tests such as ELISA, complement fixation test (CFT), serum agglutination test, or milk ring test can be nonspecific because of cross-reaction with other common antigenically related bacteria (Perry and Bundle, 1990; Diaz-Aparicio et al., 1994), or sub-sensitive or high immunity reactions, depending on subclinical or endemic prevalence of the disease (Alton et al., 1988; Godfroid et al., 2002). A further limit of the serological tests is that they cannot discriminate between infected and exposed individuals (Blasco et al., 1994; Dobson and Meagher, 1996). In fact, animals that test seropositive may be infected animals, individuals that were infected and have recovered, or resistant animals that have merely been exposed to Brucella. Factors determining natural resistance to brucellosis have been reported (Price et al., 1990; Borriello et al., 2006). Bacteriological isolation of the causative organism is regarded as the gold standard for a definitive diagnosis of the disease (Alton et al., 1988; OIE, 2004). Bacteriological isolation is, however, laborious for large-scale diagnosis, time-consuming because of the long incubation time (10 to 15 d), and of high risk to laboratory personnel. In addition, the lack of stringent selective growth media results in frequent overgrowth of contaminants. The limitations of both of these approaches have resulted in an increased interest in developing rapid, accurate diagnostic tests for the direct detection of Brucella spp. in bovine samples such as milk and blood. Polymerase chain reaction has been shown to be a valuable tool for the detection of DNA from different fastidious and noncultivable pathogens, having the additional advantages of allowing the detection of small numbers of microorganisms, being reproducible and easily standardized, minimizing the risk of infection to laboratory workers, and having a total processing time of about 2 to 3h. These characteristics can be extremely important when rapid and accurate identification of Brucella spp. is required. Several studies have been published on the detection of Brucella DNA by PCR, both from pure culture (Fekete et al., 1990; Baily et al., 1992; Herman and De Ridder, 1992) and from field samples, mostly of cattle origin (Leal-Klevezas et al., 1995; Hamdy and Amin, 2002; O’Leary et al., 2006). Despite the importance of buffalo milk as a source of human brucellosis in areas where buffalo are bred, few studies have been published on the diagnosis of brucellosis by PCR in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis; Guarino et al., 2000), and no information is available on the performance of PCR assays on buffalo milk samples. In Italy, mainly in the south, buffalo breeding is an important source of income, particularly through the production of a soft cheese called Mozzarella di Bufala.

The direct detection of pathogenic bacteria in food samples is hampered by the presence of PCR-inhibitory substances frequently associated with the food matrix itself (Rossen et al., 1992). In milk, components such as Ca2+, proteinase, fats, polysaccharides, and milk proteins may act as inhibitors of nucleic acid amplification by shielding DNA from polymerase access (Wilson, 1997). Compared with cow's milk, buffalo milk contains less water, and more solids (fat and proteins) and lactose. This underscores the need for effective protocols for the extraction of high-quality DNA from buffalo milk samples in preparation for PCR amplification. In this study, we assess the feasibility of PCR and real-time PCR assays as diagnostic tools for the detection of Brucella spp. in milk from seropositive and seronegative water buffaloes.

Back to Article Outline

Materials and Methods 

Laboratory Inoculated Samples 

We used the B. abortus RB51 vaccine (CZ Veterinaria S.A., Porrino, Spain) to inoculate pooled milk from a Brucella-free herd in the nonendemic area of Grosseto (Italy). The milk was microbiologically confirmed to be negative to brucellosis, and was used to evaluate the sensitivity of 5 different DNA extraction methods used in combination with 2 PCR primer pairs.

Field Samples 

Blood and milk samples were collected from 60 water buffaloes. Fifty-three of the animals were from 3 farms in the endemic area of Salerno (Italy), and were classified as seropositive based on a positive reaction to one or both of the following tests: 1) rose Bengal test (RBT); and 2) CFT, as described below. Seven animals were from a Brucella-free dairy herd in Grosseto, a nonendemic area of Italy, and used as negative controls. Samples were classified as negative by RBT and CFT. All milk samples were obtained from animals during their routine milking time. Samples from each animal were obtained from all 4 quarters of the mammary gland. Five hundred microliters of milk was used for the molecular detection of Brucella spp.

Serological Testing of Field Samples 

Serum samples of 60 water buffaloes were tested by RBT and CFT according to Alton et al. (1988). Sera were considered positive when showing any degree of agglutination in the RBT, or 50% or less hemolysis at a dilution of 1/4 or greater in the CFT (i.e., ≥20 IU/mL). Milk samples were tested by bovine brucellosis milk ELISA test using Brucella S-LPS as antigen (Institut Pourquier, Montpellier, France). The ELISA results were classified as negative or positive using the cut-off values recommended by the manufacturer.

Bacteriological Examination of Field Samples 

The cream and sediment mixture from each of the 60 samples was collected after 20mL of milk from each sample was centrifuged at 2,000×g for 20min at 4°C. Cream and sediment were then spread onto Brucella agar plates with added Brucella supplement (Oxoid Ltd., Hampshire, UK) and 5% horse serum. The plates were then incubated at 37°C in 10% CO2 for 5 to 10 d and examined daily for the presence of colonies, following the identification methods adopted by Quinn et al. (1994).

Sensitivity Studies on Laboratory Inoculated Samples 

Raw milk samples obtained from water buffaloes with no history of brucellosis were used for sensitivity studies. These samples were used in all spiking experiments and, in the entire study, as negative controls for PCR. The sensitivity of 5 DNA extraction protocols and 2 pairs of PCR primers (F4/R2 and B4/B5) were evaluated. Five-hundred-microliter samples of raw, Brucella-free milk were spiked with 10-fold serial dilutions of strain RB51, starting from 4×109 cfu/mL to 0.4 cfu/mL. One aliquot of milk was not spiked and was used as a negative control. For each DNA extraction protocol, we thus prepared a 12-tube series: 11 tubes each containing 500μL of serially diluted spiked milk and 1 tube containing the same amount of control (un-spiked) milk; DNA was extracted from these dilutions using 5 protocols as described below.

DNA Extraction Protocol A 

Protocol A was as described by Romero and Lopez-Goni (1999). Briefly, 500-μL samples were mixed with 100μL of NET buffer [50mM NaCl, 125mM EDTA, 50mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6)] and 100μL of 24% SDS. The mixtures were cooled on ice after incubation at 80°C for 10min. Digestion with proteinase K and RNase (final concentrations of 325 and 75μg/mL, respectively) was carried out at 50°C for 2h. The DNA was extracted with phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol using phase Lock Gel Heavy tubes (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany) and precipitated with 1/10vol.me of 3 M NaOAc, pH 5.2, 0.8μL of glycogen (10μg/mL), and 1vol.me of isopropanol, and then washed with 75% ethanol and dried. The DNA pellet was dissolved in 100μL of nuclease-free water and stored at −20°C until further use. Two microliters of extracted DNA was used for PCR.

DNA Extraction Protocol B 

Protocol B followed the Leal-Klevezas method (Leal-Klevezas et al., 1995); briefly, 400μL of lysis solution (2% Triton-X 100, 1% SDS, 100mM NaCl, 10mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) and 5μL of proteinase K (20 mg/mL) were added to the samples, thoroughly mixed, and incubated for 30min at 50°C. Thereafter, DNA was extracted and precipitated as described in protocol A. Two microliters of extracted DNA was used for PCR.

DNA Extraction Protocol C 

Three hundred microliters of lysis buffer (3 M guanidine thiocyanate, 20mM EDTA, 10mM Tris-HCl pH 6.8, 40 mg/mL of Triton X-100, 10 mg/mL dl-dithiothreitol), described previously (Cremonesi et al., 2006), was added to the samples, which were then incubated for 10min at room temperature. Digestion with 100μL of 10% SDS and 3μL of proteinase K (20 mg/mL) were carried out at 50°C for 1h. Three microliters of RNase (4 mg/mL) was then added, and samples were incubated at 37°C for 1h. Thereafter, DNA was extracted and precipitated as described in protocol A. Two microliters of extracted DNA was used for PCR.

DNA Extraction Protocol D 

Samples were centrifuged at 9,700×g for 15min for bacterial concentration. The fatty top layer and supernatant were discarded and the remaining pellet resuspended in 500μL of 0.9% saline. Bacterial DNA was extracted following protocol A. Two microliters of extracted DNA was used for PCR.

DNA Extraction Protocol E 

The commercial kit QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen S.p.A., Milan, Italy) was used to extract DNA from milk samples according to the manufacturer's instructions. The DNA was eluted from the columns in 200μL of elution buffer. Four microliters of extracted DNA was used for PCR.

PCR and Real-Time PCR 

Two pairs of primers amplifying different regions of the Brucella genome were used: 1) primers B4 (5′-TGG CTC GGT TGC CAA TAT CAA-3′) and B5 (5′-CGC GCT TGC CTT TCA GGT CTG-3′), which amplify a 223-bp fragment of the 31-kDa outer membrane protein (Baily et al., 1992); and 2) primers F4 (5′-TCG AGC GCC CGC AAG GGG-3′) and R2 (5′-AAC CAT AGT GTC TCC ACT AA-3′), which amplify a 905-bp fragment of the 16S rRNA sequence (Romero et al., 1995a). All amplifications were performed in a total volume of 25μL using GoTaq Green Master Mix (Promega Corp., Madison, WI). Reactions with primers B4/B5 were performed at a denaturation temperature of 95°C for 2min. This was followed by 40 cycles at 95°C for 30s, 60°C for 30s, and 72°C for 30s and one final extension at 72°C for 10min. Reactions with primers F4/R2 were performed at a denaturation temperature of 95°C for 2min. This was followed by 30 cycles at 95°C for 30s, 54°C for 30s, and 72°C for 90s and one final extension at 72°C for 10min. After amplification, all reaction mixtures were analyzed by electrophoresis in a 2% agarose gel, stained with ethidium bromide, and photographed.

Real-time PCR reactions were performed in a total volume of 25μL using 2× SensiMix DNA Kit (Quantace Ltd., London, UK), 0.5μL of 50× SYBR Green I solution, 2μL of template DNA, and primers B4/B5 according to the manufacturer's instructions. Samples were amplified using an ABI Prism 7000 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) under the following conditions: 50°C for 2min, 95°C for 10min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15s and 60°C for 1min, concluding with a dissociation curve. All samples were processed in triplicate.

Sequencing 

The PCR products were sequenced with an ABI PRISM 310 Genetic Analyzer, using the BigDye Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems); PCR primers were used for sequencing. A BLAST search was then conducted to compare the resulting nucleotide sequences to those published in the database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/).

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Analytical Sensitivity Estimates 

Brucellosis-negative buffalo milk was spiked with a known number of B. abortus RB51, from 4×109 to 0.4 cfu/mL, processed using 5 different DNA extraction methods, and subsequently tested with different PCR and real-time PCR assays. The results of the sensitivity studies are shown in Figure 1.

  • View full-size image.
  • Figure 1. 

    Agarose gel showing the results of 5 different DNA extraction methods used in combination with 2 PCR assays for detection of Brucella abortus RB51 in artificially spiked buffalo milk samples. A) DNA extraction protocol A and B4/B5 PCR assay; B) DNA extraction protocol A and F4/R2 PCR assay; C) DNA extraction protocol B, C, or D and B4/B5 PCR assay; D) DNA extraction protocol B, C, or D andF4/R2 PCR assay; E) DNA extraction protocol E and B4/B5 PCR assay; F) DNA extraction protocol E and F4/R2 PCR assay. Lane 1 = 100-bp DNA ladder; lanes 2 to 12 = milk samples artificially spiked with serial dilutions of RB51 from 4×109 to 0.4 cfu/mL; lane 13 = unspiked milk samples, used as a negative control.

The different combinations of extraction methods and PCR essays yielded different limits of RB51 detection: the limit of detection was 4×103 cfu/mL using DNA extraction protocol A followed by the B4/B5 PCR assay, and 4×105 cfu/mL using the same DNA extraction protocol with the F4/R2 PCR assay (Figure 1, panels A and B, respectively). The limit of detection was 4×104 cfu/mL using DNA extraction protocol B, C, or D followed by the B4/B5 PCR assay, and 4×106 cfu/mL using 1 of these 3 DNA extraction protocols with the F4/R2 PCR assay (Figure 1, panels C and D, respectively). The limit of detection was 4×105 cfu/mL using DNA extraction protocol E with the B4/B5 PCR assay, and 4×107 cfu/mL using the same DNA extraction protocol with the F4/R2 PCR assay (Figure 1, panels E and F, respectively). The most sensitive PCR method, yielding the lowest limit of detection (4×103 cfu/mL), was the B4/B5 PCR assay on spiked milk samples processed by DNA extraction protocol A.

Spiked milk samples extracted following the most sensitive method (protocol A) were also evaluated by real-time PCR assay using SYBR Green and primers B4/B5. The limit of detection was lower than for conventional PCR (4×102 cfu/mL). Bacterial DNA extraction protocol A with B4/B5 PCR and real-time B4/B5 PCR were used to examine the 60 field samples for direct detection of Brucella spp.

Comparison of Serological, Microbiological, and Molecular Tests on Field Samples 

Blood and milk samples were collected from 60 water buffaloes, of which 53 were classified as seropositive and 7 as seronegative by RBT/CFT tests, as described above. Milk samples were examined by ELISA for the detection of Brucella antibodies, and then by culture and PCR techniques for the detection of Brucella spp. (Table 1). Results obtained through Brucella antibody detection in both sera and milk concurred. As expected, milk samples from all seropositive buffaloes were positive by ELISA, 37 were positive by culture, 33 were positive by PCR, and 35 were positive by real-time PCR. Assuming that the culture test is 100% accurate, the sensitivity (% of true positives) and specificity (% of true negatives) of serology tests were on the order of 100 and 30%, respectively. The matching rate between serology and culture was 73%.

Table 1. Serological, microbiological, and molecular results on field samples of milk
PCRReal-time PCR
BuffaloesELISACulture+−+−
Seropositive, n=5353 (+)37 (+)25122611
16 (−)8897
Seronegative, n=77 (−)7 (−)0707

Of the 37 culture-positive samples, a total of 25 and 26 were also positive by PCR and real-time PCR tests, respectively. However, of the 16 culture-negative samples, 8 were positive by PCR and 9 by real-time PCR. Combining bacteriological and molecular methods, the number of positive samples identified increased to 46. To identify the amplified fragments, PCR products were sequenced and the presence of the 31-kDa outer membrane protein of Brucella confirmed. All samples from Brucella-free buffaloes were confirmed negative by serology, culture, and PCR assays.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of molecular assays as diagnostic tools for the detection of Brucella spp. in water buffalo milk. For this purpose, we first compared different DNA extraction protocols and PCR methods on artificially spiked milk samples. The most sensitive molecular methods were chosen as potential diagnostic tools for the direct detection of Brucella spp. in milk from serologically positive water buffaloes. Results were then compared with those obtained by bacteriological methods. An indirect ELISA for the detection of Brucella-specific antibodies in milk was also evaluated. Our findings indicated that the sensitivity of the ELISA test surpassed that of both culture and PCR assays in buffalo milk. We also found that bacteriological methods identified a greater number of brucellosis-infected buffaloes than molecular methods. Neither culture nor molecular assays detected Brucella organisms in any of the seronegative animals.

As described in previous studies (Fekete et al., 1990; Baily et al., 1992; Herman and De Ridder, 1992), PCR-based assays can be extremely useful for analyzing pure microbial cultures. However, when applied directly to food samples, their efficiency can be markedly reduced by poor sample preparation, which may inadvertently introduce inhibitory substances precluding DNA amplification. Fats, enzymes, polysaccharides, proteins, and high concentrations of Ca2+ have been proposed as potential inhibitors of PCR by interfering with nucleic acid degradation or capture, and inhibiting polymerase activity for amplification (Rossen et al., 1992; Rijpens et al., 1996; Wilson, 1997). To the best of our knowledge, no information has yet been published on the performance of PCR assays on buffalo milk, which contains more fat and more protein than cow's milk.

The efficient extraction of bacterial DNA from a matrix is a critical step in PCR because the sensitivity of the test can be hindered by the method used to isolate the nucleic acid target. In the present study, we therefore evaluated different bacterial DNA extraction protocols to identify the method that would achieve the strongest and most reproducible amplifications possible.

The sensitivity of 2 different PCR methods for the detection of Brucella spp. was also compared. We chose 2 pairs of primers: B4/B5, the excellent sensitivity of which was previously reported (Matar et al., 1996; Morata et al., 1998), and F4/R2, which is commonly used for the detection of Brucella spp. in milk (Romero et al., 1995a,b; Romero and Lopez-Goni, 1999). Amplification conditions were based on those used in a previous study, which evaluated the sensitivity of PCR assays using the same primer pairs (Navarro et al., 2002), and on the Taq polymerase manufacturer's instructions. The greatest sensitivities were obtained using DNA extraction protocol A and PCR primers B4/B5 (detection limits were 4×103 cfu/mL and 4×102 cfu/mL for PCR and real-time PCR, respectively). This occurred despite the fact that primers F4/R2 amplify a region of the 16S rRNA gene present in several copies in the bacterial genome, whereas primers B4/B5 amplify one copy of the gene encoding the 31-kDa B. abortus antigen. Brucella detection limits in cow's milk as reported in the published literature vary greatly, ranging from 2.8×104 cfu/mL (Rijpens et al., 1996) through 2×103 cfu/mL (Sreevatsan et al., 2000), to between 5 and 50 cfu/mL (Romero and Lopez-Goni, 1999). In addition, different limits were reported for different species. In a study on milk samples artificially spiked with either B. abortus or B. melitensis, for example, detection limits were 100 cfu/mL for B. abortus and 1,000 cfu/mL for B. melitensis (Hamdy and Amin, 2002). Romero et al. (1995b) reported similar results. Thus, different factors may affect the sensitivity of PCR. Among these are the effectiveness of the DNA extraction protocol, the size of the processed sample, the molecular assay used, and the Brucella species tested for.

Reports on the ability of PCR to detect Brucella spp. in milk samples from infected animals compared with that of standard serological and bacteriological methods may seem somewhat inconsistent. The sensitivity of PCR detection has been shown to exceed that of serological and bacteriological methods in both experimentally and naturally infected animals (Leal-Klevezas et al., 1995; Hamdy and Amin, 2002). This is in agreement with the findings reported by Hamdy and Amin (2002) on bovine milk samples, who found the sensitivity of PCR to be greater than that of bacterial culture. Yet in sheep samples, the same authors found that bacteriological methods detected more positive cases of brucellosis than PCR. Others working on bovine milk samples found bacterial culture (Romero et al., 1995b; O’Leary et al., 2006) and serological methods (ELISA; Romero et al., 1995b) to yield more sensitive results than PCR. Interestingly, according to the findings described by O’Leary et al. (2006), tissue samples from lymph glands appeared to be the most promising sample type for B. abortus detection by PCR, whereas whole blood seemed to yield unsatisfactory results.

Several possible reasons have been proposed for the relatively inconsistent performance of the PCR assay at Brucella detection compared with that of serological or bacteriological methods: 1) the stage of infection may influence the number and location of bacteria (Morgan and MacKinnon, 1979; Alton et al., 1988); 2) the sample type used for diagnostic purposes may affect the results (O’Leary et al., 2006); 3) the presence of large amounts of host genomic DNA may inhibit the PCR reaction (Navarro et al., 2002); and 4) the DNA extraction method used may be crucial in determining the ability of the PCR assay to detect the bacterium (Romero and Lopez-Goni, 1999).

Serological tests indicate the presence of Brucella antibodies in animals, but it is only possible to positively identify an animal as infected if positive cultures are grown from tissue collected from that animal (Dobson and Meagher, 1996). In our study, the performance of serological tests in diagnosing brucellosis in a population of naturally infected buffaloes was evaluated. Brucella antibody detection in milk by ELISA concurred with RBT/CFT tests on field samples. Comparing bacteriological and serological methods, 37 out of 53 seropositive buffaloes were infected (culture-positive subjects) and 16 individuals (culture-negative and seropositive subjects) were potentially exposed but not necessarily infected animals. Therefore, estimates of Brucella prevalence based on sero-reactors may give an overestimate of the true level of infection. Although serological tests are the major diagnostic tools for screening of animal brucellosis in the field, they are unable to distinguish between truly infected and noninfected animals as previously reported (Blasco et al., 1994; Dobson and Meagher, 1996). The ability to classify animals into truly infected and noninfected is essential for a correct diagnosis.

Because detection of specific DNA, as well as bacteriological isolation of Brucella, is a true indication of the presence of the pathogen, we wanted to evaluate the feasibility of molecular assays as diagnostic tools for brucellosis. Not all bacteriologically positive samples were also positive by PCR assay. Bacteriological and molecular tests agreed (both positive) in 25 to 26 cases. Factors that may compromise DNA recovery include difficulties in disrupting bacterial cell walls, loss of DNA template through extraction procedures, or the presence of potential polymerase inhibitors. In addition, the amount of milk used for PCR is much smaller than that required for bacteriological methods, and the number of organisms contained in a sample may thus not reach PCR detection limits. On the other hand, some culture-negative samples were positive by molecular methods. These results may indicate the presence of dead organisms in the milk. When an animal is negative to the bacteriological test, but positive to a molecular test, the culture test should be repeated 1 or 2 wk later to exclude intermittent shedding of the pathogen or a typing mistake. The sensitivity of the real-time PCR assay was slightly greater than that of conventional PCR in Brucella DNA detection in field samples.

It is noteworthy that all milk samples collected from Brucella-free buffaloes and diagnosed as brucellosis negative by serological and bacteriological methods tested negative by PCR assays as well, a finding pointing to the specificity of molecular assays.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that 1) estimates of incidence of Brucella based on sero-reactors should be treated with extreme caution unless accompanied by data from tissue culture, thus avoiding overestimates of the true level of infection; 2) although the bacteriological assay was more sensitive than PCR in detecting Brucella spp. in the milk of seropositive buffaloes, molecular tools revealed false-negatives in the culture results. The simultaneous application of both direct methods may be advisable, because it increases the performance of diagnostic tools for Brucella detection.

Back to Article Outline

Supplementary data 

Download file

download text

Interpretive summary.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Alton GG, Jones LM, Angus RD, Verger JM. Techniques for the Brucellosis Laboratory. Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Publications; 1988;
  2. Baily GG, Kraahn JB, Drasar BS, Stoker NG. Detection of Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus by DNA amplification. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1992;95:271–275
  3. Blasco JM, Marín C, Jiménez de Bagués M, Barberán M, Hernández A, Molina L, et al. Evaluation of allergic and serological tests for diagnosing Brucella melitensis infection in sheep. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:1835–1840
  4. Borriello G, Capparelli R, Bianco M, Fenizia D, Alfano F, Capuano F, et al. Genetic resistance to Brucella abortus in the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Infect. Immun. 2006;74:2115–2120
  5. Corbel MJ, MacMillan AP. In:  Collier L,  Balows A,  Sussman M editor. Brucellosis, in Topley & Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections. London, UK: Georgina Bentliff; 1998;p. 819–847
  6. Cremonesi P, Castiglioni B, Malferrari G, Biunno I, Vimercati C, Moroni P, et al. Technical note: Improved method for rapid DNA extraction of mastitis pathogens directly from milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2006;89:163–169
  7. Diaz-Aparicio E, Marin C, Alonso-Urmeneta B, Aragon V, Perez-Ortiz S, Pardo M, et al. Evaluation of serological tests for diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection of goats. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:1159–1165
  8. Dobson A, Meagher M. The population dynamics of brucellosis in the Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 1996;77:1026–1036
  9. Enright FM. The pathogenesis and pathobiology of Brucella infection in domestic animals. In:  Nielsen K,  Duncan JR editor. Chapter 12 in Animal Brucellosis. Boca Raton, FL: CRS Press; 1990;
  10. Fekete A, Bantle JA, Halling SM, Sanborn MR. Preliminary development of a diagnostic test for Brucella using polymerase chain reaction. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1990;69:216–227
  11. Godfroid J, Saegerman C, Wellemans V, Walravens K, Letesson JJ, Tibor A, et al. How to substantiate eradication of bovine brucellosis when aspecific serological reactions occur in the course of brucellosis testing. Vet. Microbiol. 2002;90:461–477
  12. Guarino A, Serpe L, Fusco G, Scaramuzzo A, Gallo P. Detection of Brucella species in buffalo whole blood by gene-specific PCR. Vet. Rec. 2000;147:634–636
  13. Hamdy MER, Amin AS. Detection of Brucella species in the milk of infected cattle, sheep, goats and camels by PCR. Vet. J. 2002;163:299–305
  14. Herman L, De Ridder H. Identification of Brucella spp. by using the polymerase chain reaction. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1992;58:2099–2101
  15. Leal-Klevezas DS, Martínez-Vázquez IO, López-Merino A, Martínez-Soriano JP. Single-step PCR for detection of Brucella spp. from blood and milk of infected animals. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995;33:3087–3090
  16. Matar GM, Khneisser IA, Abdelnoor AM. Rapid laboratory confirmation of human brucellosis by PCR analysis of a target sequence on the 31-kilodalton Brucella antigen DNA. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1996;34:477–478
  17. Morata P, Queipo-Ortuño MI, de Dios Colmenero J. Strategy for optimizing DNA amplification in a peripheral blood PCR assay used for diagnosis of human brucellosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998;36:2443–2446
  18. Morgan WJB, MacKinnon DJ. 2Brucellosis. In:  Laing JA editors. in Fertility and Infertility in Domestic Animals. 3rd ed.. London, UK: ELBS, Bailliere Tindall; 1979;p. 171–198
  19. Navarro E, Escribano J, Fernández J, Solera J. Comparison of three different PCR methods for detection of Brucella spp. in human blood samples. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2002;34:147–151
  20. O’Leary S, Sheahan M, Sweeney T. Brucella abortus detection by PCR assay in blood, milk and lymph tissue of serologically positive cows. Res. Vet. Sci. 2006;81:170–176
  21. OIE. Bovine brucellosis. in Manual of the Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Paris, France: Office International Des Epizooties; 2004;409-438
  22. Perry MB, Bundle DR. Antigenic relationships of the lipopolysaccharides of Escherichia hermannii strains with those of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Brucella melitensis, and Brucella abortus. Infect. Immun. 1990;58:1391–1395
  23. Price RE, Templeton JW, Smith R, Adams LG. Ability of mononuclear phagocytes from cattle naturally resistant or susceptible to brucellosis to control in vitro intracellular survival of Brucella abortus. Infect. Immun. 1990;58:879–886
  24. Quinn PJ, Carter ME, Markey B, Carter GR. Brucella species. In:  Quinn PJ,  Carter ME,  Markey BK,  Carter GR editor. Clinical Veterinary Microbiology. London, UK: Wolfe Publishing; 1994;p. 261–267
  25. Rijpens NP, Jannes G, Van Asbroeck M, Rossau R, Herman LM. Direct detection of Brucella spp. in raw milk by PCR and reverse hybridization with 16S–23S rRNA spacer probes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996;62:1683–1688
  26. Romero C, Gamazo C, Pardo M, Lopez-Goni I. Specific detection of Brucella DNA by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995;33:615–617
  27. Romero C, Lopez-Goni I. Improved method for purification of bacterial DNA from bovine milk for detection of Brucella spp. by PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999;65:3735–3737
  28. Romero C, Pardo M, Grillo MJ, Diaz R, Blasco JM, Lopez-Goñi I. Evaluation of PCR and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on milk samples for diagnosis of brucellosis in dairy cattle. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995;33:3198–3200
  29. Rossen L, Norskov P, Holmstrom K, Rasmussen OF. Inhibition of PCR by components of food samples, microbial diagnostic assays and DNA-extraction solutions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1992;17:37–45
  30. Sreevatsan S, Bookout JB, Ringpis F, Perumaalla VS, Ficht TA, Adams LG, et al. A multiplex approach to molecular detection of Brucella abortus and/or Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000;38:2602–2610
  31. Wilson IG. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997;63:3741–3751

PII: S0022-0302(08)71003-8

doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1233

Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 91, Issue 10 , Pages 3779-3786, October 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution