This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Muñoz, P. M. Articles by Blasco, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Muñoz, P. M. Articles by Blasco, J. M.

Efficacy of Several Serological Tests and Antigens for Diagnosis of Bovine Brucellosis in the Presence of False-Positive Serological Results Due to Yersinia enterocolitica O:9

Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza,¹ Departamento de Microbiología, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain,² OIE/FAO Reference Laboratory for Brucellosis, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, Maisons-Alfort, France,³ Department of Veterinary Microbiology, WCVM, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada⁴

Received 20 August 2004/ Returned for modification 9 September 2004/ Accepted 15 October 2004

Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 bears a smooth lipopolysaccharide (S-LPS) of Brucella sp. O-chain A + C/Y epitopic structure and is a cause of false-positive serological reactions (FPSR) in standard tests for cattle brucellosis. Brucella S-LPS, cross-reacting S-LPSs representing several O-chain epitope combinations, Brucella core lipid A epitopes (rough LPS), Brucella abortus S-LPS-derived polysaccharide, native hapten polysaccharide, rough LPS group 3 outer membrane protein complexes, recombinant BP26, and cytosolic proteins were tested in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and precipitation tests to detect cattle brucellosis (sensitivity) and to differentiate it from FPSR (specificity). No single serological test and antigen combination showed 100% sensitivity and specificity simultaneously. Immunoprecipitation tests with native hapten polysaccharide, counterimmunoelectrophoresis with cytosolic proteins, and a chaotropic ELISA with Brucella S-LPS were 100% specific but less sensitive than the Rose Bengal test, complement fixation, and indirect ELISA with Brucella S-LPSs and native hapten or S-LPS-derived polysaccharides. A competitive ELISA with Brucella S-LPS and M84 C/Y-specific monoclonal antibody was not 100% specific and was less sensitive than other tests. ELISA with Brucella suis bv. 2 S-LPS (deficient in C epitopes), Escherichia hermannii S-LPSs [lacking the contiguous -(1-2)-linked perosamine residues characteristic of Y. enterocolitica S-LPS], BP26 recombinant protein, and Brucella cytosolic fractions did not provide adequate sensitivity/specificity ratios. Although no serological test and antigen combination fully resolved the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in the presence of FPSR, some are simple and practical alternatives to the brucellin skin test currently recommended for differential diagnosis.