Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0261595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261595

Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

Jean Bosco Ntivuguruzwa 1,2,*,#, Francis Babaman Kolo 1,, Emil Ivan Mwikarago 3,¤,, Henriette van Heerden 1,#
Editor: A K M Anisur Rahman4
PMCID: PMC9681097  PMID: 36413520

Abstract

Bovine brucellosis is endemic in Rwanda, although, there is a paucity of documented evidence about the disease in slaughtered cattle. A cross-sectional study was conducted in slaughtered cattle (n = 300) to determine the seroprevalence of anti-Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal Test (RBT), and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (i-ELISA). Corresponding tissues were cultured onto a modified Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria (CITA) selective medium and analysed for Brucella spp. using the 16S-23S ribosomal interspacer region (ITS), AMOS, and Bruce-ladder PCR assays. The seroprevalence was 20.7% (62/300) with RBT, 2.9% (8/300) with i-ELISA, and 2.9% (8/300) using both tests in series. Brucella-specific 16S-23S ribosomal DNA interspace region (ITS) PCR detected Brucella DNA in 5.6% (17/300; Brucella culture prevalence). AMOS-PCR assay identified mixed B. abortus and B. melitensis (n = 3), B. abortus (n = 3) and B. melitensis (n = 5) while Bruce-ladder PCR also identified B. abortus (n = 5) and B. melitensis (n = 6). The gold standard culture method combined with PCR confirmation identified 5.6% Brucella cultures and this culture prevalence is higher than the more sensitive seroprevalence of 2.9%. This emphasizes the need to validate the serological tests in Rwanda. The mixed infection caused by B. abortus and B. melitensis in slaughtered cattle indicates cross-infection and poses a risk of exposure potential to abattoir workers. It is essential to urgently strengthen a coordinated national bovine brucellosis vaccination and initiate a test-and-slaughter program that is not presently applicable in Rwanda.

Introduction

Brucellosis is a contagious widespread disease that causes not only substantial economic losses related to abortions, long conception intervals, and sterility in animals but also morbidity and reduced working capacity in humans [1, 2]. The disease is caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella which belongs to the family of alphaproteobacteria [3]. Brucella species are gram-negative microaerophilic coccobacilli, acid-fast intracellular, and host-specific microorganisms affecting a wide variety of terrestrial and marine mammals [4, 5]. Brucella species are 96% genetically identical [6] with few polymorphisms that are essential for species and biovars differentiation [7, 8]. Classical species with their biovars (bv.) have specific hosts, for instance, B. abortus (7 biovars) infect primarily cattle, B. melitensis (3 biovars) infect goats and sheep, B. ovis infects sheep, B. suis (bv. 1, 3, 4, and 5) infect swine while B. suis bv. 2 infects rats, B. canis infects dogs, and B. neotomae infects wood rats [4, 9].

The transmission of brucellosis in animals is through inhalation of Brucella aerosols [10], direct contact with infective fetal membranes, vaginal discharges, placenta content, and ingestion of contaminated feeds [11]. There are no pathognomonic clinical signs for brucellosis, but cases of abortion or hygroma are suspicious signs that require laboratory diagnosis for confirmation [9, 12].

To detect brucellosis at the herd level, the most suitable tests are serological tests to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis in the animal and or herd using a screening agglutination test, the Rose Bengal Test (RBT), and a confirmatory test like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) or complement fixation test (CFT) [9]. However, serological tests do not provide a complete diagnosis, thus, the isolation of Brucella spp. remains the gold standard [9]. The culturing and biotyping of Brucella cultures are expensive, time-consuming, and require trained personnel [7]. PCR assays differentiate B. abortus bv.1, 2, 4, B. melitensis bv.1, 2, 3, B. ovis, and B. suis bv.1 (AMOS PCR) in 24 hours from cultures [7] and Bruce-ladder PCR assay can differentiate all Brucella species and vaccine strains [13, 14]. Unfortunately, culture, phenotypic and genotypic isolation of Brucella spp. are not common in veterinary services in most developing countries owing to inadequate facilities and trained personnel; therefore, serology is in common practice with little knowledge on the type of infecting Brucella spp. [15].

Brucellosis is an endemic disease in Rwanda with a reported 7.4% to 18.7% seroprevalence in cattle [16, 17], as well as seroprevalence in women with a history of abortions varying between 6.1% and 25.0% [18, 19]. Although cattle from various districts of the country are slaughtered at abattoirs, there is no single study on the seroprevalence of brucellosis in slaughtered cattle in Rwanda. Furthermore, apart from a single study that isolated B. abortus bv. 3 from Rwandan cattle in the 1980s [20], Brucella spp. that are circulating in Rwanda are not known. The objective of this study was, therefore, to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis and characterize Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda. Our findings are essential to building an epidemiological database essential for the control of brucellosis in Rwanda.

Materials and methods

Study area

This study was conducted at six abattoirs in Rwanda. Rwanda is a landlocked country of the East African community covering an area of 26,338 Km2 in the southern hemisphere near the equator (West: 28.86; East: 30.89; North: - 1.04; South: - 2.83). The bovine population in Rwanda was estimated at 1,293,768 in 2018 [21]. The six abattoirs (société des abattoirs de Nyabugogo “SABAN”, Rugano abattoir, Kamembe, Rubavu, Kamuhanda, Gataraga) consented to participate (Fig 1). These abattoirs were selected based on their slaughtering capacity and their location to sample cattle from all thirty districts of Rwanda. In this study, cattle sampled at the SABAN abattoir were from 19 districts including Rulindo, Ngoma, Muhanga, Nyagatare, Gasabo, Bugesera, Ngororero, Gakenke, Burera, Rutsiro, Gicumbi, Nyarugenge, Kirehe, Ruhango, Kayonza, Karongi, Nyanza, Kamonyi, and Gatsibo. Cattle sampled at Rugano abattoir were from three districts including Gasabo, Rwamagana, and Nyarugenge. Cattle sampled at Kamembe abattoir were from eight districts including Gisagara, Huye, Nyamagabe, Nyamasheke, Nyanza, Nyaruguru, Ruhango, and Rusizi. Cattle sampled at Rubavu abattoir were from two districts Nyabihu, and Rubavu. Cattle sampled at Kamuhanda abattoir were from the Kamonyi district. Cattle sampled at Gataraga abattoir were from the Musanze district. These abattoirs were classified into high throughput abattoirs (n = 4) slaughtering more than 50 cattle daily and low throughput abattoirs (n = 2) slaughtering 50 or less every day.

Fig 1. A map of Rwanda with provinces and districts with red stars showing the locations of abattoirs visited in this study [22].

Fig 1

Study design and sample size

A cross-sectional study was carried out from August 2018 through October 2019 to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis and characterize Brucella spp. from cattle tissue selected during slaughtering at abattoirs. The sample size was calculated using the previously described formula [23] for cross-sectional studies.

N=Z2P(1P)d2

Where N is the sample size, Z2 = 1.96 the statistical constant at a 95% confidence interval; P is the expected prevalence and was 0.5% based on previous studies [17], and the absolute precision, d = (P/2). According to the formula, the total sample size was 291 but it was rounded to 300 cattle to sample ten animals per each of the 30 districts of Rwanda.

Sampling procedure

Our target was to sample five animals coming from the same district every day. The district of origin of animals was recorded on arrival using the movement permit issued by the sector animal resources officer at the animal market. The age was determined using teeth erosion as previously described [24]. Except for abattoirs that received mostly males, females of one year and above were selected using systematic random sampling. Animals were aligned in a crush and every fourth animal was selected for sampling. The vaccination status and farm of origin of slaughtered animals could not be traced because most of the animals were bought from different animal markets.

Collection of blood and tissues samples

After the selection and recording of individual demographic information (district of origin, age, breed, and sex), the animal was restrained, marked on the head, and released for resting waiting for the collection of blood after bleeding. Blood was collected into sterile 50 ml tubes after slaughter, aliquoted into 5 ml tubes, and immediately transported to the laboratory of the University of Rwanda (UR) and left overnight at room temperature to allow clotting. The following day, serum was collected into a sterile 2 ml micro-centrifuge tube and stored at -20°C until serological testing at Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Board (RAB), Department of Veterinary Services, in the serology section. The head of the marked animal from which blood was collected was followed at the head inspection station and the corresponding left and right retropharyngeal lymph nodes were collected into a sterile 50 ml tube.

Serological tests

Animal sera were tested with the RBT following the manufacturer’s guidelines (IDvet, France) and the OIE protocol [9]. Briefly, equal volumes (30 μl) of Brucella antigens and sera were gently mixed for four minutes, and any agglutination was regarded as a positive result. All sera were also checked for the presence of anti-Brucella antibodies with a confirmatory test kit namely a multispecies i-ELISA according to manufacturer’s guidelines (IDvet, France) and the OIE protocol [9] with positive and negative controls. The cut-off point for the seropositivity was 120% and sera samples having 120% optical densities were considered positive. These serological tests were chosen because of their combined effects of sensitivity and specificity [25]. RBT is a screening test with high sensitivity, while i-ELISA is a confirmatory test with high specificity [25, 26]. Any detection of anti-Brucella antibodies by RBT or i-ELISA was considered to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis.

Culturing and Brucella isolation from tissues

Tissue samples were processed and cultured in a biosafety level 3 (BSL 3) facility at the National Reference Laboratory (NRL), Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC), Kigali, Rwanda according to the guidelines previously described [9]. Briefly, tissues were sliced using sterile scissors and forceps into sterile mortars and grounded using a sterile pestle. An aliquot of pooled homogenate was spread into a modified Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria (CITA) selective medium and incubated at 37°C with a 10.0% CO2 atmosphere [27]. Plates were read for bacterial growth every day for four weeks. The DNA was extracted from colonies suspected of Brucella organisms.

DNA extraction and identification of the genus Brucella spp.

Genomic DNA was extracted from cultures using the ReliaPrep gDNA tissue Miniprep system following the manufacturer’s guidelines (Promega, USA). This DNA was screened for Brucella DNA using Brucella-specific primers (Table 1) designed from a gene-specific 16S -23S rDNA interspacer region (ITS) [28] with the B. abortus RF 544 (Onderstepoort Biological Products, South Africa) as a positive control. For the negative control, we used ultrapure sterile water (Onderstepoort Biological Products, South Africa). The 15 μl PCR reaction mixture contained 1x of MyTaqTM Red PCR Mix (Bioline, Johannesburg, South Africa), primers at 0.2 μM, and 2 μl of template DNA. The PCR cycling condition was initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, annealing at 60°C for 2 min, and extension at 72°C for 2 min and a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min. The primers amplified a 214 bp fragment that was analyzed by electrophoresis using a 2% agarose gel stained with red gel nucleic acid stain and visualized under UV light. Molecular analyses were done at the Department of Veterinary Services, Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) Kigali, Rwanda.

Table 1. Sequences of oligonucleotide primers used for the distinction of Brucella species isolated from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda.

PCR name Primer name Sequence (5’-3’) Targets Size (bp) Conc. (μM) References
ITS ITS66 f ACATAGATCGCAGGCCAGTCA 16s-23s rDNA 214 0.2 [28]
ITS279 r ACATAGATCGCAGGCCAGTCA
AMOS B. abortus GAC GAA CGG AAT TTT TCC AAT CCC IS711 498 0.1 [7]
B. melitensis AAA TCG CGT CCT TGC TGG TCT GA 731 0.1
B. ovis CGG GTT CTG GCA CCA TCG TCG GG 976 0.1
B. suis GCG CGG TTT TCT GAA GGT GGT TCA 285 0.1
IS 711 TGC CGA TCA CTT AAG GGC CTT CAT 0.2
BRUCE- LADDER BMEI0998f ATC CTA TTG CCC CGA TAA GG wboA 1682 6.25 [29, 30]
BMEI0997r GCT TCG CAT TTT CAC TGT AGC
BMEI0535f GCG CAT TCT TCG GTT ATG AA bp26 450 6.25 [31]
BMEI0536r CGC AGG CGA AAA CAG CTA TAA
BMEII0843f TTT ACA CAG GCA ATC CAG CA omp31 1071 6.25 [32]
BMEII0844r GCG TCC AGT TGT TGT TGA TG
BMEI1436f ACG CAG ACG ACC TTC GGT AT Deacetylase 794 6.25 [33]
BMEI1435r TTT ATC CAT CGC CCT GTC AC
BMEII0428f GCC GCT ATT ATG TGG ACT GG eryC 587 6.25 [34]
BMEII0428r AAT GAC TTC ACG GTC GTTCG
BR0953f GGA ACA CTA CGC CAC CTT GT ABC Transporter 272 6.25 [35]
BR0953r GAT GGA GCA AAC GCT GAA G
BMEI0752f CAG GCA AAC CCT CAG AAG C rpsL 218 6.25 [36]
BMEI0752r GAT GTG GTA ACG CAC ACC AA
BMEII0987f CGC AGA CAG TGA CCA TCA AA CRP Regulator 152 6.25 [33]
BMEII0987r GTA TTC AGC CCC CGT TAC CT

Identification of Brucella species using AMOS and Bruce-ladder PCR assays

The DNA samples that were ITS PCR positive were tested for B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. ovis, and B. suis using a multiplex AMOS PCR assay as previously described [7]. A 25 μl reaction mixture contained 1x MyTaq Red PCR Mix (Bioline, Johannesburg, South Africa), four species-specific forward primers and reverse primer IS711 (Table 1) at a final concentration of 0.1 μM and 0.5 μM respectively, and 2 μl of template DNA. Thermocycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, annealing at 60°C for 2 min, an initial extension at 72°C for 2 min, and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. PCR products were analysed by gel electrophoresis using 2% agarose stained with red gel nucleic acid stain and visualized under UV light.

Vaccine strains and field isolates of Brucella spp. were identified and differentiated by a multiplex Bruce-ladder PCR as previously described [14]. A 25 μl PCR reaction contained 1x MyTaqTM Red Mix (Bioline, Johannesburg, South Africa), eight species-specific forward and reverse primers at a final concentration of 6.25 μM (Table 1), and 5 μl of template DNA. The PCR cycling conditions included an initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min followed by 25 cycles at 95°C for 30 s, at 64°C for 45 s, and at 72°C for 3 min, and a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. The expected product sizes in AMOS PCR assay are 498 bp and 731 bp for B. abortus and B. melitensis, respectively. The expected product sizes for B. abortus in Bruce-ladder PCR assay are 152 bp, 498 bp, 587 bp, 587 bp, and 794 bp; they are 152 bp, 498 bp, 587 bp, 794 bp, and 1071 bp for B. melitensis. PCR products were analysed by gel electrophoresis using a 2% agarose stained with gel red nucleic acid stain and viewed under UV light.

Data analysis

The overall seroprevalence was obtained by dividing the total number of animals simultaneously positive to RBT and i-ELISA by the total number of animals sampled. Data were recorded in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Epi-Info 7 version 10 was used to calculate proportions. Significant levels between individual risk factors and results from cultures confirmed by ITS PCR assay were determined using the chi-square test. The odds ratios were determined for associated risk factors along 95% confidence intervals and statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The brucellosis case status was defined based on the results of cultures and the ITS PCR test in series. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the univariable association between the explanatory variables and brucellosis case status. Any explanatory associated with brucellosis at a P ≤ 0.20 was included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors.

Ethics statement

The authorization to conduct the study was obtained from the research screening and ethical clearance committee of the College of Agriculture, Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, University of Rwanda (Ref: 026/DRIPGS/2017), institutional review board of the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda (N° 006/CMHS IRB/2020), and Animal Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa (V004/2020). Informed verbal consent was obtained from managers of abattoirs, and owners of animals at the abattoirs.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Of the 300 cattle sera, 95.7% (287/300) were from females, while 4.3% (13/300) were from males. Most animals, 89.7% (269/300) were adults while young animals represented 10.3% (31/300). Twenty-seven percent [27.7%, (81/300)] of cattle sampled were local breed “Ankole”, 67.0% (201/300) were crossbreeds and 5.3% (16/300) were Friesians. Samples were mainly collected from high throughput abattoirs (n = 280) compared to low throughput abattoirs (n = 20).

Brucellosis seroprevalence

The seroprevalence of brucellosis in parallel was 20.7% (62/300) and 2.7% (8/300) using RBT and i-ELISA, respectively. The seroprevalence was 2.7%, (8/300) using both tests in series (Table 2).

Table 2. Serological, bacterial culture, and PCR results of samples collected from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda.

Tested RBT i-ELISA RBT&i-ELISA Bacterial growth ITS PCR AMOS PCR Bruce-ladder PCR
N n+ (%) n+ (%) n+ (%) n+(%) n+(%) B. abortus B. melitensis B. abortus&B. melitensis B. abortus B. melitensis
300 62 (20.7) 8 (2.7) 8 (2.7) 87 (29.0) 17 (5.7) 4 3 4 5 6

RBT: Rose Bengal Test, i-ELISA: indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ITS-PCR: the 16S-23S ribosomal interspacer region PCR, AMOS PCR: B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. ovis, and B. suis PCR.

Brucellosis case status by bacterial culture and the ITS PCR assay

Of the tissues that were cultured onto the modified CITA medium, ITS PCR confirmed 5.7% (17/300) (Table 2, Fig 2). Therefore, the prevalence obtained by bacteriology, the gold standard, and confirmed by ITS PCR was 5.7% (17/300). The distribution of Brucella spp. was high in high throughput abattoirs compared to low throughput but without a significant difference and Brucella isolates were almost equally distributed in all five provinces. All isolates were from adult females. There was a significant difference (p = 0.02) between breeds with crossbreeds having Brucella infections compared to other breeds (Table 3).

Fig 2. Agarose gel electrophoresis of the 16-23S interspacer region (ITS) PCR products amplified from cultures of tissues from slaughtered cattle.

Fig 2

Lanes M: DNA Gene Ruler 100bp plus (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Johannesburg, South Africa), lanes 1–7: amplification of a 214 bp sequence of the genus Brucella spp., lane 8: negative control containing sterile water, lane 9: positive control with B. abortus RF544.

Table 3. Univariable associations between animal characteristics and ITS PCR assay of Brucella spp. isolates from cultures of tissues of slaughtered cattle in Rwanda.

Variables Categories Tested ITS PCR assay on culture isolates
n+ (%) Odds Ratio, 95% CI p-value
Abattoir throughput Low (ref) 20 1 (5.00)
High 280 16 (5.71) 1.15 (0.14, 9.15) 0.894
Provinces Eastern (ref) 70 2 (2.86)
Kigali city 30 3 (10.00) 3.78 (0.60, 23.88) 0.158
Northern 50 4 (8.00) 2.96 (0.52, 16.81) 0.222
Southern 80 3 (3.75) 1.32 (0.21, 8.16) 0.762
Western 70 5 (7.14) 2.62 (0.49, 13.96) 0.261
Age Young (ref) 31 0 (0.00)
Adults 269 17 (6.32) 7.80 (0, Inf.) 0.989
Sex Males (ref) 13 0 (0.00)
Females 287 17 (5.92) 2.68 (0, Inf.) 0.989
Breed Ankole (ref) 83 1 (1.20)
Cross 201 13 (6.47) 5.67 (0.73, 44.06) 0.0972
Friesian 16 3 (18.75) 18.92 (1.83, 195.97) 0.0137

ref = reference level used in the analysis to compare infection; n+: number of positives; %: percentage, the 16S-23S ribosomal interspacer region (ITS), CI: confidence interval, inf. = infinity

Of the 5 variables that were considered in the univariable analysis, only breed met the criterion (p ≤ 0.20) for inclusion in the multivariable model.

Differentiation of Brucella spp. by AMOS and Bruce-ladder PCR assays

The AMOS PCR identified B. melitensis and B. abortus (n = 3) mixed cultures, B. abortus (n = 3), and B. melitensis (n = 5) (Fig 3) from the 17 Brucella cultures (impure culture). The Bruce-ladder PCR assay identified B. abortus (n = 5), and B. melitensis (n = 6) (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Agarose gel electrophoresis for AMOS PCR products amplified from cultures of tissues from slaughtered cattle.

Fig 3

Lanes M: Gene Ruler 100 pb plus (ThermoFischer Scientific, Johannesburg, South Africa), lanes 1–4: Brucella abortus (496 bp), lanes 5–7: B. melitensis (731 bp), Lanes 9–10: mixed B. melitensis and B. abortus, lane 11: negative control containing sterile water, lane 12: positive control, B. abortus RF544, lane 13: positive control, B. melitensis rev 1.

Fig 4. Agarose gel electrophoresis for Bruce–ladder PCR products amplified from cultures of tissues from slaughtered cattle.

Fig 4

Lanes M: Gene Ruler 100 bp (ThermoFischer Scientific, Johannesburg, South Africa); lanes 1–5: B. abortus; lanes 6–8: B. melitensis; lane 9: positive control, B. suis ZW45, lane 10: positive control, B. melitensis rev 1, lane 11: B. abortus (REF 544), lane 12: positive control, B. abortus S 19, lane 13: negative control with sterile water.

The Brucella DNA detected by ITS, AMOS, and Bruce-ladder PCR assays (100.0%, 11/11) were from cattle that were either seropositive to RBT or i-ELISA. Of these 11 Brucella isolates, 10 were isolated from slaughtered cattle collected at high throughput abattoir. The 11 Brucella isolates that were identified in provinces are as follows: Eastern (n = 1), Kigali city (n = 2), Southern (n = 3), Western (n = 2), and Northern (n = 3). The 11 Brucella isolates stratified by breeds were Ankole (n = 1), crossbreds (n = 8), and Friesians (n = 2). There was no significant difference between the category of abattoirs, provinces, age, sex of animals, and the detection by ITS, AMOS, and Bruce-ladder PCR assays.

Discussion

This is the first report of B. abortus and B. melitensis isolated from cultures of cattle tissues collected from abattoirs. The overall seroprevalence obtained in this study among slaughtered cattle selected from all the thirty districts of Rwanda (2.9% for RBT and i-ELISA) was lower than the culture prevalence of 5.6% (17/300), which is the gold standard. The fact that the lower sensitivity culture method is higher than the seroprevalence is a clear indication that the confirmatory i-ELISA test must be validated for bovine in Rwanda as the cut-off values were determined in developed countries with low brucellosis prevalence and thus clearly underestimate the prevalence due to high cut-off values.

The overall seroprevalence of 2.9% was also lower than the rates reported in Rwanda in different studies that were conducted at farm level [16, 17, 37]. However, the seroprevalence obtained in this study is comparable with the rate (3.4%) reported at Gaoundere municipal abattoir in Cameroun using RBT and i-ELISA [38], and the 3.9% reported among slaughtered cattle in Nigeria [39], and the 5.5% reported among slaughtered cattle in Gauteng province, South Africa [40]. This suggests that the seroprevalence rates observed in abattoirs are usually lower compared to the seroprevalence recorded at the farm level which usually focuses on endemic zones while slaughtered cattle come from various locations (endemic and non-endemic zones).

Friesians were more likely to be seropositive in this study and was consistent with earlier studies in Pakistan where Holstein and Friesian cattle were more seropositive than indigenous breeds [41], and in Ethiopia [42]. This supports that exotic pure breeds like Friesians are more susceptible to brucellosis than crossbreeds and indigenous breeds [43] or were introduced in the herd with chronic infections with seronegative status but being chronically infected [12, 44]. When the acute brucellosis phase has passed, the infection stabilizes with the acquisition of herd immunity leading to fewer infectious discharges and non-visible symptoms [45].

The mixed infection caused by B. abortus and B. melitensis as well as the isolation of B. melitensis from slaughtered cattle indicate the cross-infection between both Brucella spp. and mixed farming of cattle and goats or sheep. The mixed infection and mixed farming were reported in our study that identified both pathogens in aborting goat flock in Rwanda [46]. The co-infection of B. abortus and B. melitensis has also been reported in slaughtered cattle in South Africa [40]. The isolation of B. melitensis in slaughtered cattle poses a risk to abattoir workers and consumers of contaminated milk and milk products as B. melitensis and B. abortus cause severe brucellosis in humans [47, 48]. There is a need for improvement in brucellosis control using vaccination as well as test-and-slaughter, coupled with raising awareness of all occupational groups as education was associated with a high awareness of brucellosis in Rwanda [17].

Both AMOS and Bruce-ladder PCR assays identified B. abortus and B. melitensis with the B. abortus being either biovars 1, 2, or 4 (identified by AMOS PCR) which will be identified in the future after purification of cultures using biotyping. In a previous study, B. abortus bv. 3 was identified in humans and animals in 1987 in Rwanda [20]. B. abortus bv. 3 and B. melitensis bv. 1 were reported in neighboring Uganda [49], Tanzania [50], Kenya [51], and South Africa [40]. Biotyping of B. abortus biovars is complex as characteristic typical for B. abortus bv .1, except CO2 requirement for growth [52]. However, the B. abortus bv. 3 ref strain Tulya isolated from a human patient in Uganda grows in the absence of CO2 and has been observed to occur within some biovars and changes with OIE biotyping profile [9, 50]. Hence classifying B. abortus bv. 3 strains should be carefully considered. Purifying and biotyping these cultures will be able to identify the biovar(s) and molecular characterization of the strains will allow trace-back studies. Brucella abortus and B. melitensis isolated in this study could originate from neighboring countries due to the repatriation of Rwandans and their livestock from Uganda and Tanzania as well as the importation of improved cattle breeds from various countries cannot be eliminated despite testing procedures [12].

Conclusions

This study found the seroprevalence of brucellosis to be lower than the gold standard prevalence indicating that cut-off points of i-ELISA determined in Europe with brucellosis-free status or low prevalence, should be optimized for Rwanda as also reported by Mathew et al. (2015). This study identified B. abortus and B. melitensis as well as mixed infection in slaughtered cattle which is a result of the mixed livestock farming practice in Rwanda. These infections pose a risk of exposure potential to handlers of cattle, carcasses, and consumers of unpasteurized milk and milk products. Thus, vaccination and test-and-slaughter would significantly contribute to mitigating the disease. Furthermore, the introduction of an annual brucellosis-free certificate for large herds would contribute to mitigating brucellosis in the country.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Raw data in excel format and original gel images.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the National Reference Laboratory (NRL), Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB), the Department of Veterinary Services, and the University of Rwanda for the facilitation of this study. We also thank abattoir managers, inspectors and other abattoir workers, and laboratory staff at NRL and RAB for their assistance and good cooperation with the laboratory work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Belgian Directorate-General for Development Cooperation, through its Framework Agreement with the Institute of Tropical Medicine (FA DGD-ITM 2017 – 2021). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.McDermott J, Grace D, Zinsstag J. Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties. 2013;32(1):249–61. doi: 10.20506/rst.32.1.2197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Singh BB, Dhand NK, Gill JP. Economic losses occurring due to brucellosis in Indian livestock populations. Prev Vet Med. 2015;119(3–4):211–5. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moreno E, Stackebrandt E, Dorsch M, Wolters J, Busch M, Mayer H. Brucella abortus 16S rRNA and lipid A reveal a phylogenetic relationship with members of the alpha-2 subdivision of the class Proteobacteria. Journal of bacteriology. 1990;172(7):3569–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alton GG, Jones LM, Pietz DE. Laboratory techniques in brucellosis. 2d ed. ed. Geneva [Albany, N.Y.]: World Health Organization; [Available from Q Corp.]; 1975. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Corbel MJ. Brucellosis: an overview. Emerging infectious diseases. 1997;3(2):213–21. doi: 10.3201/eid0302.970219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Verger J-M, Grimont F, Grimont PA, Grayon M. Brucella, a monospecific genus as shown by deoxyribonucleic acid hybridization. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 1985;35(3):292–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bricker BJ, Halling SM. Differentiation of Brucella-Abortus-Bv-1, Brucella-Abortus-Bv-2, and Brucella-Abortus-Bv-4, Brucella-Melitensis, Brucella-Ovis, and Brucella-Suis-Bv-1 by PCR. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1994;32(11):2660–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ficht T, Bearden S, Sowa B, Marquis H. Genetic variation at the omp2 porin locus of the brucellae: species‐specific markers. Molecular microbiology. 1990;4(7):1135–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.OIE. Brucellosis (Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis, and Brucella suis) Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals 2021. Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Terrestrial Manual 8th Edition, 2021. ed. Paris, France World Organisation for Animal Health 2021. p. 355–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaufmann AF, Fox MD, Boyce JM, Anderson DC, Potter ME, Martone WJ, et al. Airborne spread of brucellosis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1980;353(1):105–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb18912.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Corbel MJ. Brucellosis in humans and animals. Corbel MJ, editor2006. ix + 89 pp. p. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Akakpo A, Bornarel P. Epidemiology of animal brucellosis in tropical Africa: clinical, serological and bacteriological surveys. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE (France). 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Garcia-Yoldi D, Marin CM, de Miguel MJ, Munoz PM, Vizmanos JL, Lopez-Goni I. 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. 2006;52(4):779–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lopez-Goni I, Garcia-Yoldi D, Marin CM, de Miguel MJ, Munoz PM, Blasco JM, et al. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay (Bruce-ladder) for molecular typing of all Brucella species, including the vaccine strains. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2008;46(10):3484–7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00837-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ducrotoy MJ, Bardosh KL. How do you get the Rose Bengal Test at the point-of-care to diagnose brucellosis in Africa? The importance of a systems approach. The Fate of Neglected Zoonotic Diseases 2017. p. 33–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ndazigaruye G, Mushonga B, Kandiwa E, Samkange A, Segwagwe BE. Prevalence and risk factors for brucellosis seropositivity in cattle in Nyagatare District, Eastern Province, Rwanda. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association. 2018;89(0):e1–e8. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v89i0.1625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ntivuguruzwa JB, Kolo FB, Gashururu RS, Umurerwa L, Byaruhanga C, van Heerden H. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Bovine Brucellosis at the Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interface in Rwanda. Microorganisms. 2020;8(10):1553. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gafirita J, Kiiza G, Murekatete A, Ndahayo LL, Tuyisenge J, Mashengesho V, et al. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis among Patients Attending a District Hospital in Rwanda. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017;97(3):831–5. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rujeni N, Mbanzamihigo L. Prevalence of brucellosis among women presenting with abortion/stillbirth in Huye, Rwanda. Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2014;2014:740479-Article ID doi: 10.1155/2014/740479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verger JM, Grayon M. [Characteristics of 273 strains of Brucella abortus of African origin]. Developments in biological standardization. 1984;56:63–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Minagri MoAaAR. Annual Report 2018–2019 Kigali, Rwanda MINAGRI; 2019 November 2019.
  • 22.Ntivuguruzwa J.B., et al., Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and characterization of the members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. 16(8): p. e0009964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dohoo IR, Martin SW, Stryhn H. Veterinary epidemiologic research. Charlotte, P.E.I.: VER, Inc.; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pope GW. Determining the age of farm animals by their teeth: US Department of Agriculture; 1934. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chisi SL, Marageni Y, Naidoo P, Zulu G, Akol GW, Van Heerden H. An evaluation of serological tests in the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in naturally infected cattle in KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association. 2017;88(0):e1–e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nielsen K. Diagnosis of brucellosis by serology. Veterinary microbiology. 2002;90(1–4):447–59. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00229-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ledwaba MB, Matle I, Van Heerden H, Ndumnego OC, Gelaw AK. Investigating selective media for optimal isolation of Brucella spp. in South Africa. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 2020;87(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Keid LB, Soares RM, Vasconcellos SA, Chiebao DP, Salgado VR, Megid J, et al. A polymerase chain reaction for detection of Brucella canis in vaginal swabs of naturally infected bitches. Theriogenology. 2007;68(9):1260–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Garcia-Yoldi D, Marín C, Lopez-Goni I. Restriction site polymorphisms in the genes encoding new members of group 3 outer membrane protein family of Brucella spp. FEMS microbiology letters. 2005;245(1):79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.femsle.2005.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vemulapalli R, McQuiston JR, Schurig GG, Sriranganathan N, Halling SM, Boyle SM. Identification of an IS711 Element Interrupting the wboA Gene of Brucella abortus Vaccine Strain RB51 and a PCR Assay To Distinguish Strain RB51 from Other Brucella Species and Strains. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. 1999;6(5):760–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cloeckaert A, Grayon M, Grepinet O. An IS711 element downstream of the bp26 gene is a specific marker of Brucella spp. isolated from marine mammals. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. 2000;7(5):835–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vizcaino N, Verger J-M, Grayon M, Zygmunt MS, Cloeckaert A. DNA polymorphism at the omp-31 locus of Brucella spp.: evidence for a large deletion in Brucella abortus, and other species-specific markers. Microbiology. 1997;143(9):2913–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rajashekara G, Glasner JD, Glover DA, Splitter GA. Comparative whole-genome hybridization reveals genomic islands in Brucella species. Journal of bacteriology. 2004;186(15):5040–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sangari FJ, García-Lobo JM, Agüero J. The Brucella abortus vaccine strain B19 carries a deletion in the erythritol catabolic genes. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1994;121(3):337–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Halling SM, Peterson-Burch BD, Bricker BJ, Zuerner RL, Qing Z, Li L-L, et al. Completion of the genome sequence of Brucella abortus and comparison to the highly similar genomes of Brucella melitensis and Brucella suis. Journal of Bacteriology. 2005;187(8):2715–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cloeckaert A, Grayon M, Grépinet O. Identification of Brucella melitensis vaccine strain Rev.1 by PCR-RFLP based on a mutation in the rpsL gene. Vaccine. 2002;20(19):2546–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rujeni N, Gasogo A, Mbanzamihigo L. Contribution to the Study of the Prevalence of Brucellosis in Rwanda. Case Study of Huye District. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2008;12(1):e128. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Awah-Ndukum J, Mouiche MMM, Bayang HN, Ngwa VN, Assana E, Feussom KJM, et al. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Brucellosis among Indigenous Cattle in the Adamawa and North Regions of Cameroon. Veterinary medicine international. 2018;2018:3468596. doi: 10.1155/2018/3468596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Akinseye VO, Adesokan HK, Ogugua AJ, Adedoyin FJ, Otu PI, Kwaghe AV, et al. Sero-epidemiological survey and risk factors associated with bovine brucellosis among slaughtered cattle in Nigeria. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 2016;83(1):1–7. doi: 10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kolo FB, Adesiyun AA, Fasina FO, Katsande CT, Dogonyaro BB, Potts A, et al. Seroprevalence and characterization of Brucella species in cattle slaughtered at Gauteng abattoirs, South Africa. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2019;5(4):545–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mangi M, Kamboh A, Rind R, Dewani P, Nizamani Z, Mangi A, et al. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in Holstein-Friesian and indigenous cattle breeds of Sindh Province. Pakistan J Anim Health Prod. 2015;3(4):82–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Omer M, Skjerve E, Woldehiwet Z, Holstad G. Risk factors for Brucella spp. infection in dairy cattle farms in Asmara, State of Eritrea. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2000;46(4):257–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Akhtar R, Iqbal MZ, Ullah A, Ali MM, Zahid B, Ijaz M, et al. Comparative association of slc11a1 (Nramp1) gene with susceptibility and resistance to brucellosis in various cattle and buffaloes breeds of Pakistan. Pak Vet J. 2019;39:612–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Roux J. Epidémiologie et prévention de la brucellose. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1979;57(2):179. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ducrotoy M, Bertu WJ, Matope G, Cadmus S, Conde-Alvarez R, Gusi AM, et al. Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges for management, diagnosis and control. Acta Tropica. 2017;165:179–93. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.10.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ntivuguruzwa JB, Kolo FB, Mwikarago EI, van Heerden H. Characterization of Brucella spp. and other abortigenic pathogens from aborted tissues of cattle and goats in Rwanda. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sadler WW. Present evidence on the role of meat in the epidemiology of human brucellosis. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health. 1960;50(4):504–14. doi: 10.2105/ajph.50.4.504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sayour AE, Elbauomy E, Abdel‐Hamid NH, Mahrous A, Carychao D, Cooley MB, et al. MLVA fingerprinting of Brucella melitensis circulating among livestock and cases of sporadic human illness in Egypt. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2020;67(6):2435–45. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mugizi DR, Muradrasoli S, Boqvist S, Erume J, Nasinyama GW, Waiswa C, et al. Isolation and molecular characterization of Brucella isolates in cattle milk in Uganda. BioMed research international. 2015;2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/720413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mathew C, Stokstad M, Johansen T, Klevar S, Mdegela R, Mwamengele G, et al. First isolation, identification, phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Brucella abortus biovar 3 from dairy cattle in Tanzania. BMC veterinary research. 2015;11(1):156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Muendo EN, Mbatha PM, Macharia J, Abdoel TH, Janszen PV, Pastoor R, et al. Infection of cattle in Kenya with Brucella abortus biovar 3 and Brucella melitensis biovar 1 genotypes. Tropical animal health and production. 2012;44(1):17–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alton GG, Jones LM, Angus RD, Verger JM. Techniques for the brucellosis laboratory 1988. 190 pp. p. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

A K M Anisur Rahman

5 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-38427Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ntivuguruzwa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

In addition to the comments provided by the reviewers please address the following:

Line 26-27: parallel interpretation means positive in at least one test. So, what the authors mentioned is not parallel but the result of serial interpretation i.e, positive in both tests.

Line 56: It was not clear what the authors wanted to mean by “As brucellosis is a herd disease”

Line 105: 0.5% should be5% ; what was the basis to consider a 5% expected prevalence? "The expected prevalence was estimated at 0.5%." Here the word "estimated" is not correct.

Line 200: Brucellosis seroprevalence among slaughter cattle in Rwanda; this subsection can be replaced by “Descriptive statistics” and lines 201 to 205 could be placed under this subsection.

Then the remaining lines can be placed under another sub-section like Brucellosis seroprevalence.

Please insert another table [preferably Table 2] summarizing all test results

Please define brucellosis case status [preferably if culture or PCR positive] and only show the distribution of the brucellosis according to the different variables presented in Table 2 deleting the distribution of brucellosis based on RBT and i-ELISA [now it will become Table 3]. Please recheck the odds ratio as also suggested by one reviewer.

Finally, please evaluate the performance of RBT and i-ELISA considering culture/PCR the as gold standard.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. K. M. Anisur Rahman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf".

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.  When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 “HvH received funds from the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp (https://www.itg.be)

in collaboration with the Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases (https://www.up.ac.za/veterinary-tropical-diseases). “ 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to acknowledge the Institute of tropical medicine, Belgium, and the Department of Veterinary Tropical Disease, South Africa, for funding the project. Our acknowledgments also go to the National Reference Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Services, and the University of Rwanda for the facilitation of this study. We also thank abattoir managers, inspectors and other abattoir workers, laboratory staff at NRL, and RAB for their assistance and good cooperation.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“HvH received funds from the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp (https://www.itg.be)

in collaboration with the Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases (https://www.up.ac.za/veterinary-tropical-diseases).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Figure 1 was was submitted in PLOS Neglected diseases in a different manuscript which is still under consideration. The figure describes the study area which was the same for both manuscripts (this one is on brucellosis while the other is on bovine tuberculosis) but samples and data are different] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

7. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

 In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

8. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

9. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

10. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

This is an interesting piece of work that will have an important implication on policy in Rwanda. I must congratulate the team for a well-conducted and written manuscript. However please double check odds ratio and its confidence interval which seems incomplete.

All the best for your future.

“Thank You”

Reviewer #2: Seroprevalence of brucellosis and characterisation of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda is well written paper about a very important zoonotic disease of human and animal health

Following are suggestions for improvement of paper before accepted for publication

line 36-37. is test and slaughter policy applicable in Rwanda

line 62-63. remove underline sign from species name of Brucella

line 148, have you performed microscopy or biochemical testing for Brucella susceptable isolates

line 149, there is a need to add details of positive and negative controls used in genus specific PCRs

line 179-180. what awas product length of B. abortus and melitensis in case of AMOS and Bru-ladder PCR assays

-it will be a good addition, if you can add sequencing results too (if possible, otherwise you can try it next time)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0261595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261595.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Aug 2022

Response to reviewers

July 30th, 2022

Editor, Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2

PLOS One

Re: revision of the manuscript [PONE-D-21-38427]-[EMID: 82b0bed3761197ba]

Dear Editor and reviewers,

The authors would like to acknowledge your valuable inputs. We thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda”. Your comments were very clear and useful to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have revised the manuscript considering all issues mentioned in your comments. Outlined below are the point-by-point responses.

Editor

Comment: line 26-27: parallel interpretation means positive in at least one test. So, what the authors mentioned is not parallel but the result of serial interpretation i.e, positive in both tests.

Response: the comment was addressed. Parallel replaced by series

Comment: line 56: It was not clear what the authors wanted to mean by “As brucellosis is a herd disease”

Response: the sentence was rephrased as follows: “to detect brucellosis at herd level, the ……”

Comment: line 105: 0.5% should be 5%; what was the basis to consider a 5% expected prevalence? "The expected prevalence was estimated at 0.5%." Here the word "estimated" is not correct.

Response: the comment was addressed. 0.5% replaced by 5% and the sentence was rephrased as follows: “the expected prevalence was 5% based on previous studies (Ntivuguruzwa et al., 2020)”.

Comment: line 200: Brucellosis seroprevalence among slaughter cattle in Rwanda; this subsection can be replaced by “Descriptive statistics” and lines 201 to 205 could be placed under this subsection.

Then the remaining lines can be placed under another sub-section like Brucellosis seroprevalence.

Response: the comment was addressed. A subsection of descriptive statistics was added

Comment: please insert another table [preferably Table 2] summarizing all test results

Response: a separate table 2 was added as follows:

Table 2. Serological, bacterial culture and PCR results of samples collected from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

Tested RBT i-ELISA RBT&i-ELISA Culture ITS PCR AMOS PCR Bruce-ladder PCR

N n+ (%) n+ (%) n+ (%) n+(%) n+(%) B. abortus B. melitensis B. abortus&B. melitensis B. abortus B. melitensis

300 62 (20.7) 8 (2.7) 8 (2.7) 87 (29.0) 17 (5.7) 4 3 4 5 6

Comment: Please define brucellosis case status [preferably if culture or PCR positive] and only show the distribution of the brucellosis according to the different variables presented in Table 2 deleting the distribution of brucellosis based on RBT and i-ELISA [now it will become Table 3].

Response: table was readjusted as follows:

Variables Categories Tested ITS PCR assay on culture isolates

n+ (%) Odds Ratio p-value

Abattoirs High throughput 280 16 (5.71) 0.02-6.22 1

Low throughput 20 1 (5.00)

Provinces Eastern 70 2 (2.86) Undetermined 0.43

Kigali city 30 3 (10.00)

Northern 50 4 (8.00)

Southern 80 3 (3.75)

Western 70 5 (7.14)

Age Adults 269 17 (6.32) 0.00-2.09 0.23

Young 31 0 (0.00)

Sex Females 287 17 (5.92) 0.00-5.75 1

Males 13 0 (0.00)

Breed Ankole 83 1 (1.20) Undetermined 0.02

Cross 201 13 (6.47)

Friesian 16 3 (18.75)

Comment: Please recheck the odds ratio as also suggested by one reviewer.

Response: the odds ration were checked and corrected

Comment: Finally, please evaluate the performance of RBT and i-ELISA considering culture/PCR the as gold standard.

Response: the comment was addressed as follows:

“The performance of RBT and i-ELISA indicated by the seroprevalence rate (2.7%) was low compared to the prevalence obtained by culture and ITS PCR (5.7%)”.

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

This is an interesting piece of work that will have an important implication on policy in Rwanda. I must congratulate the team for a well-conducted and written manuscript. However please double check odds ratio and its confidence interval which seems incomplete. All the best for your future.

“Thank You”

Response: Thank you so much. The odds ratio were checked and corrected.

Reviewer #2: Seroprevalence of brucellosis and characterisation of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda is well written paper about a very important zoonotic disease of human and animal health. Following are suggestions for improvement of paper before accepted for publication

Response: Thank you so much

Comment: Line 36-37. is test and slaughter policy applicable in Rwanda

Response: the comment was addressed as follows:

It is essential to urgently strengthen a coordinated national bovine brucellosis vaccination and initiate test-and-slaughter program which is not presently applicable in Rwanda.

Comments: Line 62-63. remove underline sign from species name of Brucella

Response: the underline sign was removed: PCR assays which differentiate B. abortus bv.1, 2, 4, B. melitensis bv.1, 2, 3, B. ovis, and B. suis bv.1 (AMOS PCR) in 24 hours from cultures

Comment: line 148, have you performed microscopy or biochemical testing for Brucella susceptable isolates

Response: we did not perform microscopy nor biochemical testing. All suspect cultures were screened with ITS PCR

Comment: Line 149, there is a need to add details of positive and negative controls used in genus specific PCRs

Response: the details for the positive and negative controls were indicated in line 153 as follows: “with the B. abortus RF 544 (Onderstepoort Biological Products, South Africa) as a positive control. For the negative control, we used ultrapure sterile water (Onderstepoort Biological Products, South Africa)”.

Comment: Line 179-180. what a was product length of B. abortus and melitensis in case of AMOS and Bru-ladder PCR assays-it will be a good addition, if you can add sequencing results too (if possible, otherwise you can try it next time)

Response: The expected product sizes in AMOS PCR assay are 498 bp and 731 bp for B. abortus and B. melitensis, respectively. The expected product sizes for B. abortus in Bruce-ladder PCR assay are 152 bp, 498 bp, 587 bp, 587 bp, and 794 bp; they are 152 bp, 498 bp, 587 bp, 794 bp and 1071 bp for B. melitensis.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

A K M Anisur Rahman

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-38427R1

Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ntivuguruzwa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

  1. Please ignore my previous comment regarding the evaluation of RBT and i-ELISA considering culture/PCR as gold-standard as it was not performed properly and also it may not be possible to evaluate efficiently due small size of culture /PCR positive samples.

  2. Please estimate odds ratio appropriately. There should have one reference for every variables and usually the category with lowest prevalence is considered as reference. For example, Low throughput for abattoirs, eastern for provinces, etc.

  3. Please replace "univariate" with "univariable" from Table 3 title.

  4. Other than reference category, every category of a variable should have an odds ratio. What did you mean by "undetermined"?

  5. Please add before line 177: The brucellosis case status was defined based on the results of culture and ITS PCR tests in series.

  6. Lines 177-180: Please add the following: The chi-square test was used to evaluate the univariable association between the explanatory variables and brucellosis case status. Any explanatory variable associated with brucellosis at a P≤0.20 was included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors.

  7. Lines 222-223: The brucellosis case status was considered as prevalence based on bacterial growth and  confirmation by ITS PCR. Please delete this sentence.

  8. Please delete lines 249-250

  9. Please delete lines 334-346 as these results are not statistically significant.

  10. The authors could add a discussion about the 70 samples which were culture positive but PCR negative

  11. Please elaborate ITS and AMOS in the Tables 2 and 3 foot note

  12. Line 348: Please replace "rate" with "prevalence"

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  1.  Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. K. M. Anisur Rahman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all the comments as suggested and it is a good piece of work which will be useful in the policy implications in Rwanda. Congratulations to the team for the great work.

Thanks and Regards

Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all of my comments adequately

Hopefully this paper will be a nice piece of research work for brucellosis researchers across the globe.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Ritik Agrawal

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0261595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261595.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Oct 2022

Response to reviewers

October 17th, 2022

Editor,

PLOS One

Re: revision of the manuscript [PONE-D-21-38427]-[EMID: 82b0bed3761197ba]

Dear Editor

The authors would like to acknowledge your valuable input. We thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda”. Your comments were very clear and useful to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have revised the manuscript considering all issues mentioned in your comments. Outlined below are the point-by-point responses.

Comment:

1. Please ignore my previous comment regarding the evaluation of RBT and i-ELISA considering culture/PCR as gold-standard as it was not performed properly and also it may not be possible to evaluate efficiently due small size of culture /PCR positive samples.

Response: the sentence was deleted

Comment:

2. Please estimate odds ratio appropriately. There should have one reference for every variables and usually the category with lowest prevalence is considered as reference. For example, Low throughput for abattoirs, eastern for provinces, etc.

Response: the univariable table was revised to remove the odds ratio. The variables with P ≤ 0.20 were selected for the multivariable analysis table.

Table 4. Results of the multivariable logistic regression analysis between animal characteristics and ITS PCR assay of Brucella spp. isolates from cultures of tissues of slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

Variables Category Odds Ratios 95% CI p-Value

Breeds Ankole a

Crossbreed 5.7 0.73-44.06 0.097

Friesian 18.9 1.83-195.96 0.014

Comment:

3. Please replace "univariate" with "univariable" from Table 3 title.

Response: corrected

Comment:

4. Other than reference category, every category of a variable should have an odds ratio. What did you mean by "undetermined"?

Response:

Comment:

5. Please add before line 177: The brucellosis case status was defined based on the results of culture and ITS PCR tests in series.

Response: corrected

Comment:

6. Lines 177-180: Please add the following: The chi-square test was used to evaluate the univariable association between the explanatory variables and brucellosis case status. Any explanatory variable associated with brucellosis at a P≤0.20 was included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors.

Response: sentences were added.

Comment:

7. Lines 222-223: The brucellosis case status was considered as prevalence based on bacterial growth and confirmation by ITS PCR. Please delete this sentence.

Response: the sentence was deleted

Comment:

8. Please delete lines 249-250

Response: corrected

Comment:

9. Please delete lines 334-346 as these results are not statistically significant.

Response: corrected

Comment:

10. The authors could add a discussion about the 70 samples which were culture positive but PCR negative

Response: All samples that presented growth on the CITA agar plate were subjected to ITS PCR for confirmation. The 70 samples were not culture-positive for Brucella and therefore can not be discussed.

Comment:

11. Please elaborate ITS and AMOS in the Tables 2 and 3 foot note

Response: corrected

Comment:

12. Line 348: Please replace "rate" with "prevalence"

Response: corrected

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2nd Response to reviewers -.docx

Decision Letter 2

A K M Anisur Rahman

20 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-38427R2Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in RwandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ntivuguruzwa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:I still need clarification about one of my previous comment: The authors could add a discussion about the 70 samples which were culture positive but PCR negative

Response: All samples that presented growth on the CITA agar plate were subjected

to ITS PCR for confirmation. The 70 samples were not culture-positive for Brucella and

therefore can not be discussed.If this is the case then please clarify the figure 89 (29%) under the column 'culture'.Please remove Table 4 as it is not based on the results of a multivariable model. Multivariable model must contain at least two variables. As only one variable is associated with a p value <0.20 in the univariable screening there is no need to run the multivariable model. Please include odds ratio and their 95% Confidence interval in the Table 3. ==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. K. M. Anisur Rahman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0261595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261595.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


3 Nov 2022

Response to reviewers

October 29th, 2022

Editor,

PLOS One

Re: revision of the manuscript [PONE-D-21-38427]-[EMID: 82b0bed3761197ba]

Dear Editor

The authors would like to acknowledge your valuable input. We thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda”. Your comments were very clear and useful to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have revised the manuscript considering all issues mentioned in your comments. Outlined below are the point-by-point responses.

Comment:

I still need clarification about one of my previous comment: The authors could add a discussion about the 70 samples which were culture positive but PCR negative

Response: All samples that presented growth on the CITA agar plate were subjected to ITS PCR for confirmation. The 70 samples were not culture-positive for Brucella and therefore cannot be discussed.

If this is the case then please clarify the figure 89 (29%) under the column 'culture'.

Response:

CITA medium and most other selective media focus on isolating Brucella but each medium still does not allow exclusive growth of Brucella. They reduce most contaminant bacteria but some others still grow. Thus other contaminants will grow on CITA and other selective media (Ledwaba et al., 2020). Considering the growth of contaminant bacteria that can even hide the Brucella growth, we screened each growth with ITS PCR for confirmation.

Figure 87 (29%) under column “culture” indicates bacterial growth including contaminants. Therefore, “culture” was changed to “bacterial growth” to avoid confusion.

Comment:

Please remove Table 4 as it is not based on the results of a multivariable model. A Multivariable model must contain at least two variables. As only one variable is associated with a p value <0.20 in the univariable screening there is no need to run the multivariable model. Please include odds ratio and their 95% Confidence interval in the Table 3.

Response:

The table was deleted.

Odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval were included in the univariable table.

Variables Categories Tested ITS PCR assay on culture isolates

n+ (%) Odds Ratio, 95% CI p-value

Abattoir throughput Low (ref) 20 1 (5.00)

High 280 16 (5.71) 1.15 (0.14, 9.15) 0.894

Provinces Eastern (ref) 70 2 (2.86)

Kigali city 30 3 (10.00) 3.78 (0.60, 23.88) 0.158

Northern 50 4 (8.00) 2.96 (0.52, 16.81) 0.222

Southern 80 3 (3.75) 1.32 (0.21, 8.16) 0.762

Western 70 5 (7.14) 2.62 (0.49, 13.96) 0.261

Age Young (ref) 31 0 (0.00)

Adults 269 17 (6.32) 7.80 (0, Inf.) 0.989

Sex Males (ref) 13 0 (0.00)

Females 287 17 (5.92) 2.68 (0, Inf.) 0.989

Breed Ankole (ref) 83 1 (1.20)

Cross 201 13 (6.47) 5.67 (0.73, 44.06) 0.0972

Friesian 16 3 (18.75) 18.92 (1.83, 195.97) 0.0137

ref=reference level used in the analysis to compare infection; n+: number of positives; %: percentage, the 16S-23S ribosomal interspacer region (ITS), CI: confidence interval, inf.=infinity

Kind regards

Attachment

Submitted filename: 3rd Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

A K M Anisur Rahman

6 Nov 2022

Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

PONE-D-21-38427R3

Dear Dr. Ntivuguruzwa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

A. K. M. Anisur Rahman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

A K M Anisur Rahman

10 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-38427R3

Seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. from slaughtered cattle in Rwanda

Dear Dr. Ntivuguruzwa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. A. K. M. Anisur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Raw data in excel format and original gel images.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2nd Response to reviewers -.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 3rd Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES