Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Research Forum logoLink to Veterinary Research Forum
. 2019 Dec 15;10(4):315–321. doi: 10.30466/vrf.2018.89680.2171

Molecular identification of Brucella species and biovars associated with animal and human infection in Iran

Maryam Dadar 1,*, Saeed Alamian 1, Ali Mohammad Behrozikhah 1, Freshteh Yazdani 1, Armin Kalantari 1, Afshar Etemadi 1, Adrian M Whatmore 2
PMCID: PMC7065579  PMID: 32206227

Abstract

Brucellosis is a costly contagious disease of human, domestic and wild animals. It is a serious health problem in Iran causing significant economic losses therefore, control approaches to prevent its spread are of great importance. In Iran, the species and biovars of virulent Brucella species are still under-reported due to the inadequate diagnostic protocols and insufficient laboratory facilities. The objective of this study was to characterize Brucella isolates obtained from passive animal and human surveillance in Iran from 2011 to 2018 in order to understand the current epidemiological situation of the disease. A total of 419 samples (milk, blood, cerebrospinal fluid, abomasum content and aborted fetus tissues) were collected from 65 cases/case series (human and animals) and examined bacteriologically. The initially identified Brucella isolates were further characterized using phenotypic and molecular approaches. All recovered isolates were either B. abortus or B. melitensis. The infection in sheep appeared to be exclusively associated with B. melitensis, but both B. abortus and B. melitensis were common in bovine samples. Samples from one sheep and one goat were confirmed to be infected by the B. melitensis vaccine strain Rev1. In spite of B. abortus burden in animals (14 cases in cattle and camel), brucellosis in human was predominantly associated with B. melitensis (15 cases). The results confirmed that B. melitensis biovar 1 and B. abortus biovar 3 remain the most prevalent biovars in Iran. This report builds a picture of the significance of different Brucella species in different hosts in Iran and provides applicable information for the healthcare professionals about the public health risks of brucellosis and relevant preventive strategies.

Key Words: Brucellosis, Bruce ladder, PCR, Brucella species and biovars

Introduction

Brucellosis is known as a highly contagious disease of ruminants and humans caused by Gram-negative, non-motile coccobacilli of the genus Brucella.1 Among Brucella spp., B. abortus, B. suis, and B. melitensis are the most pathogenic and invasive species for human and livestock.2 Brucella canis can also cause human infection but is considered a less significant zoonotic threat.3 Brucellosis is still an uncontrolled public health issue in some endemic regions in the Mediterranean, northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East and parts of Latin America and Asia. More than 500,000 new human cases of brucellosis are reported annually by World Health Organization (WHO).4 The efficient preventive approaches have been established in several developed countries such as Australia, Northern European nations, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand,3 which led to brucellosis eradication. However, brucellosis still represents a threat for human and livestock worldwide,5 and is also categorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a class B bioterrorist pathogen that has historically been developed as a bio-weapon.6

Iran represents an endemic region for brucellosis.7 The geographical distribution of brucellosis in this area is constantly changing with new foci of infection emerging or re-emerging.8,9 Roushan et al. evaluated the clinical manifestations and epidemiological features of 469 adult patients suffering from brucellosis in the northern part of Iran and reported that the consumption of unpasteurized dairy products, working at a laboratory, practicing in a veterinary profession, and direct contact with livestock as the main routes for brucellosis infection.10 Other studies reported that the consumption of unsafe dairy products and animal husbandry as the main risk factors of brucellosis in different parts of Iran. 8.11 The prevalence of human and animal brucellosis have been reported in various parts of Iran such as east,11,12 central,13,14 west15,16 and south.17,18 For example, the prevalence of brucellosis from 2002-2006 was 340 per 10,000 in small ruminants and 56.00 per 10,000 in cattle. In addition, the incidence of human brucellosis was 37.00 per 100,000 in the east of Iran.19 In another study, it was revealed that the mean incidence rate of human brucellosis was 60.00 per 100,000 during 2001-2010 in the central part of Iran. The highest reported incidence rate in humans was 111.5 per 100,000 in 2004, while the lowest incidence rate was 40.50 per 100,000 in 2006.13 In the west of Iran, the incidence of brucellosis in human reached 59.31 per 100,000 in 2013.16 These represent among the highest incidences for human brucellosis reported globally.20

A few studies have reported the isolation and characterization of Brucella from human or livestock samples by approaches such as classical biotyping and modern molecular approaches such as IS711-based (AMOS) PCR.8,11,12 AMOS PCR is described as a recent advance for accurate and rapid diagnosis of brucellosis that has been reported to overcome the limitations of conventional methodology. 9,10

A previous study by Zowghi et al. reported that B. abortus biovars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 (predominantly 3) were isolated from sheep and a small number of cattle. Also, B. melitensis biovars 1, 2 and 3 (predominantly 1) were isolated from sheep, goats, cattle, camels, dogs, and humans.21 However other Brucella species such as B. neotomae, B. suis, B. ovis and B. canis were not detected.21 In another study it was revealed that Brucella isolates causing abortion in small ruminants were predominantly B. melitensis biovar 1, with a smaller number of B. melitensis biovar 2 isolates and a single isolate of B. abortus biovar 3.22 The present study aims to further evaluate and update the presence and the nature of Brucella spp. in Iran.

Materials and Methods

Sample collection. A number of 419 samples including 151 milk samples (126 cows, one camel, 16 sheep and eigth goats), 58 human blood samples, three human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples, 46 abomasal contents (32 cows, 14 sheep), 94 bovine lymph nodes and 67 tissue samples (kidney, liver, abomasum, spleen, heart and lung) from the aborted fetuses (26 sheep, 39 cows, two goats) were collected from 2011 to 2018. Samples were submitted to the Department of Brucellosis of the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute (Karaj, Iran) from 2011 to 2018. Cows, sheep, and goats with a history of abortion were examined in the farms. Samples from all visceral organs (liver, abomasum content, lungs, kidneys, spleen, and heart) were collected in sterile plastic bags and preserved at – 20.00 ˚C for Brucella culture and isolation. Human cases of brucellosis were patients referred with clinical complaints to the RVSRI Department of Brucellosis with symptoms compatible with brucellosis, and positive Wright and 2ME tests. Milk and serum samples were stored at – 20.00 ˚C until analysis. The animals and human samples were collected from different location of Iran such as Mashhad, Sari, Kashan, Qom, Kerman, Ilam, Shahrekord, Tehran, Shiraz, Karaj, Gharchak, Yazd, Marvdasht, Zanjan, Rey, Semnan and Garmsar from 2011 to 2018.

Brucella isolation. For the isolation and identification of brucella, bacteriological assays were performed under appropriate protection in safety hoods at the RVSRI Department of Brucellosis. All individual milk samples, abomasum content and aborted fetal organs, as well as blood samples, were subjected to bacterial culture. Primary isolation of Brucella spp. was performed by inoculating the samples on a Brucella selective supplement containing polymyxin B (2,500 IU), bacitracin (12,500 IU), nystatin (50,000 IU), cycloheximide (50.00 mg), nalidixic acid (2.50 mg) and vancomycin (10.00 mg) all from Oxoid (Basingstoke, UK) and inactivated 5.00% horse serum in Brucella agar (Himedia, Mumbai, India). The inoculated media were incubated for 10 days at 37.00 ˚C with 10.00% CO2. Milk samples were centrifuged for 15 min at 3,500 rpm and afterward, sediments and the creamy upper layer were cultured. After 14 days of incubation, the bacterial cultures were discarded if no growth was visible. Typical colonies of Brucella spp. were sub-cultured and subjected to further analysis to obtain full identification and biotype.

Biotyping. Classical biotyping was performed according to the procedure described by Alton et al.23 Brucella monospecific antisera A and M and Brucella reference phage of Tbilisi (Tb) were routinely prepared and used for diagnosis and analysis in the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute. A panel of biotyping tests such as CO2 dependence, H2S production, agglutination with specific Brucella antisera, growth in media containing thionin and basic fuchsin, agglutination by acriflavine, and lysis by specific phages were performed24 and the results were interpreted according to the documented data.23

Molecular typing. Genomic DNA was extracted by heat-treating a loopful of bacterial colony dissolved in 300 µL of molecular-grade water at 100 ˚C for 15 min.25 The suspension was vortexed and centrifuged at 13,000 g for 5 min and then the supernatant containing DNA was collected and stored at − 20.00 ˚C until later use.26 The DNA concentration was evaluated by measuring the DNA absorbance at 260 nm. After that, the extracted DNA was subjected to IS711-based (AMOS) PCR for Brucella spp.27 Species-level molecular identification was also performed using seven primer pairs (Table 1) in a multiplex PCR (Bruce-ladder) to reveal different Brucella spp. under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95.00 ˚C for 5 min, 30 cycles of 95.00 ˚C for 30 sec, 56.00 ˚C for 90 sec, 72.00 ˚C for 3 min and a final extension step at 72.00 ˚C for 10 min.28 The amplified products were resolved by electrophoresis using a 1.50% agarose gel.

Table 1.

The list of primer pair names and sequences and the expected amplicon sizes for different Brucella species

Strains Primer Primer sequence (5-3’) Target gene Amplicon size (bp) Ref.
B. abortus IS711
AB 		TGCCGATCACTTTCAAGGGCCTTCAT
GACGAACGGAATTTTTCCAATCCC		 IS711 498
B. melitensis IS711
BM 		TGCCGATCACTTTCAAGGGCCTTCATAAATCGCGTCCTTGCTGGTCTGA IS711 731
B. abortus
B. melitensis
B. melitensis Rev.1 		BMEI0998f
BMEI0997r		 ATCCTATTGCCCCGATAAGG
GCTTCGCATTTTCACTGTAGC		 Glycosyltransferase,
gene wboA 		1682
B. abortus
B. melitensis
B. melitensis Rev.1 		BMEI0535f
BMEI0536r		 GCG CATTCTTCGGTTATGAA
CGCAGGCGAAAACAGCTATAA		 Immunodominant
antigen, gene bp26 		450
B. abortus
B. melitensis
B. melitensis Rev.1 		BMEI1436f
BMEI1435r		 ACGCAGACGACCTTCGGTAT
TTTATCCATCGCCCTGTCAC		 Polysaccharide
deacetylase		 794
B. abortus
B. melitensis
B. melitensis Rev.1 		BMEII0428f
BMEII0428r		 GCCGCTATTATGTGGACTGG
AATGACTTCACGGTCGTTCG		 Erythritol catabolism,
gene eryC 		587
B. abortus
B. melitensis
B. melitensis Rev.1 		BMEII0987f
BMEII0987r		 CGCAGACAGTGACCATCAAA
GTATTCAGCCCCCGTTACCT		 Transcriptional
regulator, CRP family		 152
B. melitensis BMEII0843f
BMEII0844r		 TTTACACAGGCAATCCAGCA
GCGTCCAGTTGTTGTTGATG		 Outer membrane
protein, gene omp31 		1071
B. melitensis Rev.1 BMEI0752f
BMEI0752r		 CAGGCAAACCCTCAGAAGC
GATGTGGTAACGCACACCAA		 Ribosomal protein S12,
gene rpsL 		218
Open in a new tab

Results

Brucella isolates (n=161) were recovered from 48 out of 65 examined cases/case series. These included isolates from human blood (47/58), human CSF (1/3), ovine aborted fetuses (9/26), ovine milk (1/16), bovine milk (49/126), bovine aborted fetuses (3/39), bovine lymph nodes (44/94), bovine abomasum contents (5/32), goat milk (1/8) and camel milk (1/1). Isolated bacteria exhibited common phenotypic features typical of Brucella spp. All isolates grew in 10.00% carbon dioxide (CO2) after 5 to 14 days incubation at 37.00 ˚C. Bacteria isolated were Gram-negative and formed small honey colored, translucent and shiny colonies with a smooth surface. Isolates were characterized to the biovar level and identity confirmed to the species/vaccine level for all isolates by the use of AMOS PCR and Bruce-ladder. Isolates represented either B. abortus, B. melitensis or B. melitensis vaccine strain Rev1.

Brucella abortus. A number of 89 Brucella isolates identified as B. abortus which they were isolated from 15 cases (cattle 13 cases, human and camel each one case), (Fig. 1). Biotyping was consistent with the presence of B. abortus biovars 1 (two cases), 2 (one case), 3 (eight cases) and 5 (four cases). As expected, only the biovar 1 and 2 isolates gave the 498 bp B. abortus specific band in AMOS PCR, which detects only biovars 1, 2 and 4.29 However all isolates were confirmed as B. abortus in the Bruce-ladder PCR with PCR products of 1682, 794, 587, 450 and 152 bp in size (Table 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The frequency of B. abortus and B. melitensis biovars in different examined samples

Brucella melitensis. Seventy-two isolates were identified as B. melitensis which they were isolated from 33 cases (Fig. 1) including sheep/goats (eight cases), cows (10 cases) and humans (15 cases). Brucella melitensis isolates belonged to three biovars of those biovar 1 (22 cases) was more common than the other two biovars 2 (two cases) and 3 (seven cases). The last two B. melitensis isolated from a sheep fetus and goat milk sample were B. melitensis Rev 1 vaccine strain on the basis of Bruce-ladder typing. All the other isolates were identified as wild type B. melitensis by both AMOS-PCR with a PCR product of 731 bp and Bruce-ladder with PCR products of 1682, 794, 587, 450, 152 and 1,071 bp in size. Brucella melitensis Rev.1 vaccine strain was differentiated from the other B. melitensis strains through a specific additional band of 218-bp (Table 1).

Geographical distribution of Brucella species/ biovars. A map of the distribution of Brucella species/biovars across Iran revealed that B. melitensis biovar 1 is the most prevalent biovar identified in 11 provinces (Tehran, Mazandaran, Alborz, Qom, Zanjan, Esfahan, Ilam, Chahar Mahal-va-Bakhtiari, Semnan, Kerman, and Fars). Brucella melitensis biovar 2 was only identified in Kerman province, while B. melitensis biovar 3 was identified from samples collected from three provinces of Alborz, Kerman and Khorasan-e Razavi. Brucella abortus biovar 1 was detected from samples originating from two provinces of Tehran and Yazd. Brucella abortus biovar 2 was only detected in Yazd Province, biovar 3 in Tehran and Fars, while biovar 5 was identified in provinces of Tehran and Qom. In addition, Rev1 vaccine strain was isolated from samples collected from two provinces of Zanjan and Kerman (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The geographical distribution of Brucella species/biovars of animals and humans in Iran. The numbers inside the boxes indicate the frequencies of Brucella biovars

Discussion

Due to the endemic nature of brucellosis in some regions of Iran, the knowledge of epidemiological, and clinical features of common and virulent Brucella species is crucial for better diagnosis, prevention, and control of the disease. The gold standard procedure for the diagnosis of human and animal brucellosis is still the bacterial culture and the isolation of the causative agent followed by bacteriological tests and biotyping. In many Iranian studies, Brucella infection has been investigated using serology and PCR tests, but there are very few studies that examine the actual presence of Brucella species and biovars recently. For this purpose, we performed bacteriological and molecular methods (such as Bruce-ladder not previously applied in Iran) to further characterize Brucella biodiversity in the animal and human infected communities in Iran. The results of the present study extended our knowledge of Brucella species and biovars that are currently associated with this zoonosis disease in Iran. These reports also revealed the passive surveillance for brucellosis over a seven-year period showing the significant burden of both B. abortus and B. melitensis in the past few years. In terms of livestock, while B. abortus appeared to be largely restricted to cattle, B. melitensis appeared to be common in both cattle and small ruminants. This is consistent with the increasing observations of the isolation of B. melitensis from cattle, particularly in Africa and the Middle East2,30-32 and with previous observations in Iran.21 Human brucellosis though appears predominantly associated with B. melitensis (94.00% of cases), with a much lower burden of B. abortus (6.00%), consistent with the view that B. melitensis is the most significant human pathogen among Brucella species globally.6,33

According to our results, B. melitensis biovar 1 was the significant Brucella species predominantly isolated from humans with rarer isolation of B. melitensis biovars 3 and B. abortus biovars 1. These results are in accordance with the findings of the previous study from different parts of Iran, reporting B. melitensis biovars 1 as endemic and widely spread in humans.21 This type of brucella was also reported in more recent studies as the most prevalent isolate in humans elsewhere.6,34

Brucella abortus biovar 3 was the most prevalent type in cattle. This finding is in agreement with a previous epidemiological study performed in Iran, recognizing this biovar as the main and the most virulent in cattle.21 B. abortus biovar 3 has also been reported as a common cause of abortion in dairy cows in Europe, China, and Turkey as well as in Kenya21,35 though molecular studies have shown that B. abortus biovar 3 corresponds to multiple separate lineages.36

Based on our results, B. melitensis biovars 1, B. melitensis biovars 3 and B. melitensis Rev1 are the only species that have been isolated in the aborted sheep fetus. B. melitensis biovar 1 was first reported from a sheep in the center of Iran (Isfahan) and then spread in different Iranian regions, infecting sheep and goats as well as cattle, camel, dogs, and humans.21 The study of Ashrafganjooyi et al. on 700 milk samples reported B. melitensis biovar 1 as the most common biovar in sheep and goat milk samples.37 B. melitensis biovar 1 was also reported in Iran,21,22 China,38 Libya,39 Israel,40 Kenya41 and Oman,42 while B. abortus biovar 1 is present in Iran,21 Pakistan,43 and Kuwait.44

This study showed that B. melitensis biovar 3 is also common in Iran that is inconsistent with a previous report from Turkey.45 In the Middle East countries, B. melitensis biovars 3 has also been reported as the most common cause of Brucella infections in human.42 According to our data, B. melitensis biovar 2 was only reported in cows from Kerman. In spite of being the most prevalent biovar in China,38 this biovar seems to be present in a lower extent in the Middle East and Mediterranean countries. Brucella melitensis biovar 2 was previously reported from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, 22,42 and our results reported the incidence of this biovar in cattle.

Brucella abortus biovar 5 was isolated from the single Iranian camel sample examined in the present study. The infection of camels with B. melitensis biovar 3 and B. abortus biovar 6 has been reported in Western Sudan.46 Another study reported the presence of B. abortus biovar 1 from camel milk in Kuwait.44 Generally, camel brucellosis has been reported in different parts of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia and Libya as well as in the United Arab Emirates.47 Although, both B. abortus and B. melitensis can infect camels,46-48 Zaki reported B. abortus as the most common cause of brucellosis in camels.49 Further work is needed to determine the brucellosis burden in Iranian camels.

Two isolates of B. melitensis Rev1 from an ovine foetus and caprine milk confirmed the propensity of Rev1 to be shed in milk and causing abortion in the small ruminants particularly if the timing of vaccination is not optimal.50 The attenuated B. melitensis Rev 1 strain is currently administrated as the exclusive vaccine for the prevention of brucellosis in sheep and goat in Iran. The full- and reduced-doses of Rev 1 have been suggested as safe and effective approaches for controlling small ruminant brucellosis. Taken together, our results, utilizing both classical methods and newly introduced molecular approaches, demonstrated the frequency of brucellosis infection in Iran and reflects the spread of various B. melitensis and B. abortus biovars. In spite of this update, there are significant gaps in the different Iranian literature on the epidemiology of Brucella in cattle, sheep, camels, and human, therefore, further works are required to fully understand the epidemiology of this disease. This knowledge will ultimately support the design of potential brucellosis control programs and preventive strategies in Iran.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grant 2-18-18-036-960504 from Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute (RVSRI); Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO).

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Cutler S, Whatmore A, Commander N. Brucellosis–new aspects of an old disease. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98(6):1270–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02622.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kolo FB, Fasina FO, Ledwaba B, et al. Isolation of Brucella melitensis from cattle in South Africa. Vet Rec. 2018;182(23):668–669. doi: 10.1136/vr.k2450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Seleem MN, Boyle SM, Sriranganathan N. Brucellosis: a re-emerging zoonosis. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(3-4):392–398. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ezama A, Gonzalez JP, Majalija S, et al. Assessing short evolution brucellosis in a highly brucella endemic cattle keeping population of Western Uganda: A complementary use of Rose Bengal test and IgM rapid diagnostic test. BMC public health. 2018;18(1):315. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5228-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shoukat S, Wani H, Ali U, et al. Brucellosis: A current review update on zoonosis. J Immunol Immunopathol. 2017;19(2):61–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhong Z, Yu S, Wang X, et al. Human brucellosis in the People's Republic of China during 2005–2010. Int J Infect Dis. 2013;17(5):e289–e292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2012.12.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sofian M, Aghakhani A, Velayati AA, et al. Risk factors for human brucellosis in Iran: A case–control study. Int J Infect Dis. 2008;12(2):157–161. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2007.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Behzadnia S, Najafi N, Marzban K, et al. Evaluation of epidemiologic, clinical, and paraclinical features of children with brucellosis hospitalized in two teaching hospital related to Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Iran, during the years 2010-2016. Chron Dis J. 2018;5(1):12–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mirnejad R, Jazi FM, Mostafaei S, et al. Epidemiology of brucellosis in Iran: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study. Microb Pathog. 2017;109:239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roushan MH, Mohrez M, Gangi SS, et al. Epidemio-logical features and clinical manifestations in 469 adult patients with brucellosis in Babol, Northern Iran. Epidemiol Infect. 2004;132(6):1109–1114. doi: 10.1017/s0950268804002833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tahamtan Y, Namavari MM, Mohammadi G, et al. Prevalence of brucellosis in horse north-east of Iran. J Equine Vet Sci. 2010;30(7):376–378. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Esmaeili H. Brucellosis in Islamic republic of Iran. J Med Bacteriol. 2015;3(3-4):47–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Farahani S, Shah-mohamadi S, Navidi I, et al. An investigation of the epidemiology of brucellosis in Arak City, Iran (2001-2010) J Arak Uni Med Sci. 2012;14(7):49–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sofian M, Sheikholeslami M, Mahdaviani FA, et al. Low prevalence of brucella agglutinins in blood donors in central province of Iran. Iran J Microbiol. 2013;5(1):24–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Eini P, Keramat F, Hasanzadehhoseinabadi M. Epidemiologic, clinical and laboratory findings of patients with brucellosis in Hamadan, west of Iran. J Res Health Sci. 2012;12(2):105–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kassiri H, Amani H, Lotfi M. Epidemiological, laboratory, diagnostic and public health aspects of human brucellosis in western Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2013;3(8):589–594. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(13)60121-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Beheshti S, Rezaian G, Azad F, et al. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and risk factors related to high risk occupational groups in Kazeroon, South of Iran. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2010;1(2):62–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alavi SM, Rafiei A, Nikkhooi A. The effect of lifestyle on brucellosis among nomads in Khuzestan province of Iran. Pak J Med Sci. 2007;23(3):358–360. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bokaie S, Sharifi L, Alizadeh H. Epidemiological survey of brucellosis in human and animals in Birjand, east of Iran. J Anim Vet Adv. 2008;7(4):460–463. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dean AS, Crump L, Greter H, et al. Global burden of human brucellosis: A systematic review of disease frequency. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(10):e1865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zowghi E, Ebadi A, Yarahmadi M. Isolation and identification of Brucella organisms in Iran. IranJ Clin Infec Dis. 2008;3(4):185–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Behroozikhah AM, Bagheri Nejad R, Amiri K, et al. Identification at biovar level of Brucella isolates causing abortion in small ruminants of Iran. J Pathog. 2012:357235. doi: 10.1155/2012/357235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alton G, Jones L, Angus R, et al. Techniques for the Brucellosis laboratory. Paris, France: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Godfroid J, Garin-Bastuji B, Saegerman C, et al. Brucellosis in terrestrial wildlife. Rev Sci Tech. 2013;32(1):27–42. doi: 10.20506/rst.32.1.2180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Probert WS, Schrader KN, Khuong NY, et al. Real-time multiplex PCR assay for detection of Brucella spp B abortus and B melitensis. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(3):1290–1293. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.3.1290-1293.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Song L, Li J, Hou S, et al. Establishment of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for rapid detection of Brucella spp and application to milk and blood samples. J Microbiol Methods. 2012;90(3):292–297. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ewalt DR, Bricker BJ. 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. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(8):3085–3086. doi: 10.1128/jcm.38.8.3085-3086.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.López-Goñi I, García-Yoldi D, Marin C, et al. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay (Bruce-ladder) for molecular typing of all Brucella species, including the vaccine strains. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(10):3484–3487. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00837-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bricker BJ, Halling SM. Differentiation of Brucellaabortus bv and 4 Brucellamelitensis, Brucellaovis, and Brucellasuis bv 1 by PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32(11):2660–2666. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.11.2660-2666.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.El-Diasty M, Wareth G, Melzer F, et al. Isolation of Brucellaabortus and Brucellamelitensis from seronegative cows is a serious impediment in Brucellosis control. Vet Sci. 2018;5(1):E28. doi: 10.3390/vetsci5010028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Musallam I, Abo-Shehada M, Hegazy Y, et al. Systematic review of brucellosis in the Middle East: disease frequency in ruminants and humans and risk factors for human infection. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(4):671–685. doi: 10.1017/S0950268815002575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.El-Hady AM, Sayed-Ahmed M, Saleh ME, et al. Seroprevalence and molecular epidemiology of brucellosis in cattle in Egypt. J Adv Dairy Res. 2016;4(2):153. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Xiao P, Yang H, Di D, et al. Genotyping of human Brucella melitensis biovar 3 isolated from Shanxi Province in China by MLVA16 and HOOF. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0115932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dastjerdi MZ, Nobari RF, Ramazanpour J. Epidemiological features of human brucellosis in central Iran, 2006–2011. Public Health. 2012;126(12):1058–1062. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mathew C, Stokstad M, Johansen T, et al. First isolation, identification, phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Brucellaabortus biovar 3 from dairy cattle in Tanzania. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12917-015-0476-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Whatmore AM, Koylass MS, Muchowski J, et al. Extended multilocus sequence analysis to describe the global population structure of the genus Brucella: Phylogeography and relationship to biovars. Front Microbiol. 2016:7:2049. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ashrafganjooyi S, Saedadeli N, Alamian S, et al. Isolation and biotyping of Brucella spp from sheep and goats raw milk in southeastern Iran. Trop Biomed. 2017;34(3):507–511. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jiang H, Fan M, Chen J, et al. MLVA genotyping of Chinese human Brucellamelitensis biovar 1, 2 and 3 isolates. BMC Microbiol. 2011;11(1):256. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-11-256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gameel S, Mohamed S, Mustafa A, et al. Prevalence of camel brucellosis in Libya. Trop Anim Health Prod. 1993;25(2):91–93. doi: 10.1007/BF02236513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Banai M, Mayer I, Cohen A. Isolation, identification, and characterization in Israel of Brucella melitensis biovar 1 atypical strains susceptible to dyes and penicillin, indicating the evolution of a new variant. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28(5):1057–1059. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.5.1057-1059.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Muendo EN, Mbatha PM, Macharia J, et al. Infection of cattle in Kenya with Brucella abortus biovar 3 and Brucella melitensis biovar 1 genotypes. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2012;44(1):17–20. doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9899-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Refai M. Incidence and control of brucellosis in the Near East region. Vet Microbiol. 2002;90(1-4):81–110. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00248-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ali S, Ali Q, Melzer F, et al. Isolation and identification of bovine Brucella isolates from Pakistan by biochemical tests and PCR. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2014;46(1):73–78. doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0448-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Al-Khalaf S, El-Khaladi A. Brucellosis of camels in Kuwait. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;12(1-2):1–4. doi: 10.1016/0147-9571(89)90002-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Erdenlig S, Sen A. Isolation and biotyping of Brucella species from aborted sheep fetuses. Pendik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg. 2000;31(2):31–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Musa MT, Eisa MZ, El Sanousi EM, et al. Brucellosis in camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Darfur, Western Sudan. J Comp Pathol. 2008;138(2-3):151–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moghney FRA. A preliminary study on brucellosis on camels at Behira province. Ass Univ Bull Environ Res. 2004;7(1):39–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Abbas B, Agab H. A review of camel brucellosis. Prev Vet Med. 2002;55(1):47–56. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5877(02)00055-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zaki R. Brucella infection among ewes, camels and pigs in Egypt. J Comp Pathol Ther. 1948;58(2):145–151. doi: 10.1016/s0368-1742(48)80013-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ducrotoy M, Bertu W, Matope G, et al. Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges for management, diagnosis and control. Acta Trop. 2017;165:179–193. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Veterinary Research Forum are provided here courtesy of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

RESOURCES