PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Cattle brucellosis is a severe zoonosis of worldwide distribution caused by Brucella abortus and B. melitensis. In some countries with appropriate infrastructure, animal tagging and movement control, eradication was possible through efficient diagnosis and vaccination with B. abortus S19, usually combined with test-and-slaughter (T/S). Although S19 elicits anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies that may interfere in the differentiation of infected and vaccinated animals (DIVA), this issue is minimized using appropriate S19 vaccination protocols and irrelevant when high-prevalence makes mass vaccination necessary or when eradication requisites are not met. However, S19 has been broadly replaced by vaccine RB51 (a rifampin-resistant rough mutant) as it is widely accepted that is DIVA, safe and as protective as S19. These RB51 properties are critically reviewed here using the evidence accumulated in the last 35 years. Controlled experiments and field evidence shows that RB51 interferes in immunosorbent assays (iELISA, cELISA and others) and in complement fixation, issues accentuated by revaccinating animals previously immunized with RB51 or S19. Moreover, contacts with virulent brucellae elicit anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies in RB51 vaccinated animals. Thus, accepting that RB51 is truly DIVA results in extended diagnostic confusions and, when combined with T/S, unnecessary over-culling. Studies supporting the safety of RB51 are flawed and, on the contrary, there is solid evidence that RB51 is excreted in milk and abortifacient in pregnant animals, thus being released in abortions and vaginal fluids. These problems are accentuated by the RB51 virulence in humans, lack diagnostic serological tests detecting these infections and RB51 rifampicin resistance. In controlled experiments, protection by RB51 compares unfavorably with S19 and lasts less than four years with no evidence that RB51-revaccination bolsters immunity, and field studies reporting its usefulness are flawed. There is no evidence that RB51 protects cattle against B. melitensis, infection common when raised together with small ruminants. Finally, data acumulated during cattle brucellosis eradication in Spain shows that S19-T/S is far more efficacious than RB51-T/S, which does not differ from T/S alone. We conclude that the assumption that RB51 is DIVA, safe, and efficaceous results from the uncritical repetition of imperfectly examined evidence, and advise against its use.
摘要：
牛布氏杆菌病是由流产布鲁杆菌和melitensis引起的世界范围内分布的严重的人畜共患。在一些拥有适当基础设施的国家，动物标记和运动控制，通过有效诊断和接种B.abortusS19,通常结合检测和屠宰(T/S),根除是可能的.尽管S19会引发抗光滑脂多糖抗体，这些抗体可能会干扰感染和接种疫苗的动物（DIVA）的分化，使用适当的S19疫苗接种方案可将此问题降至最低,并且在高流行率需要进行大规模疫苗接种或无法满足根除条件时,此问题无关紧要.然而,S19已被疫苗RB51（一种利福平抗性粗糙突变体）广泛取代，因为它被广泛接受为DIVA，安全和保护S19。使用过去35年积累的证据，对这些RB51属性进行了严格的审查。对照实验和现场证据表明，RB51干扰免疫吸附测定(iELISA，cELISA和其他)和补体固定，通过重新接种先前用RB51或S19免疫的动物而加剧的问题。此外，与强毒布鲁氏菌接触会在RB51疫苗接种的动物中引起抗光滑脂多糖抗体。因此，接受RB51是真正的DIVA结果，导致扩展的诊断混乱，当与T/S组合时，不必要的过度剔除。支持RB51安全性的研究是有缺陷的，相反,有确凿的证据表明，RB51在怀孕动物的牛奶和流产中排泄，因此在流产和阴道液中被释放。RB51在人类中的毒力加剧了这些问题，缺乏检测这些感染和RB51利福平耐药性的血清学诊断试验。在受控实验中，RB51的保护与S19相比是不利的，并且持续不到四年，没有证据表明RB51再接种可以增强免疫力，报告其有用性的实地研究是有缺陷的。没有证据表明RB51可以保护牛免受B.melitensis的侵害，与小反刍动物一起饲养时常见的感染。最后,在西班牙根除牛布鲁氏菌病期间积累的数据表明，S19-T/S比RB51-T/S有效得多，这与单独的T/S没有区别。我们得出的结论是，假设RB51是DIVA，安全,以及不完全检查的证据的无懈可击的重复结果，并建议不要使用它。
