Ethics code: IR.IAU.FALA.REC.1399.061
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aboutalebi A, Mohammadi-Sichani M, Naghavi N. Detection of Brucella militensis in the Serum of Patients Suspected of Brucellosis by the Omp31 Gene Amplification, Compared to the Serological Diagnostic Tests. Qom Univ Med Sci J 2023; 17 : 44.4
URL: http://journal.muq.ac.ir/article-1-3624-en.html
URL: http://journal.muq.ac.ir/article-1-3624-en.html
1- Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. ,Ma.Mohammadi1347@iau.ac.ir
2- Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Falavarjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. ,
Abstract: (537 Views)
Background and Objectives: Brucellosis is one of the most common infectious diseases with a global spread. It has a high prevalence in Iran. This study aims to diagnose brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis in the serum of patients by the amplification of omp31 gene, compared to the serological tests.
Methods: Blood samples were collected from 200 people suspected of brucellosis. The samples were evaluated by serological tests including Rose Bengal test, Wright test, Coombs-Wright test, gel agglutination test, and 2-mercaptoethanol (2ME) test. DNA extraction was done by the phenol/chloroform extraction method. Molecular detection with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method was done using the specific primers of the Omp31 gene. Data were analyzed in SPSS software, version 23 using the analysis of variance.
Results: Of 200 patients, 122 were female and 78 were male with a mean age of 45.17±17.43 years. The results of PCR test for the omp31 gene were positive in 14.5% of cases, which was consistent with the results of serological tests (13.8%). The sensitivity of Wright, Coombs-Wright, 2ME, and gel agglutination tests, compared to PCR, was 89.7, 75.9, 55.2 and 55.2%, respectively. Most of the affected people were housekeepers (41.5%) and urban residents (75.5%). Muscle pain (68%) and leg pain (62.3%) were the most common symptoms. Consumption of non-pasteurized dairy products was the highest risk factor (17%).
Conclusion: The diagnosis of brucellosis by the omp31 gene amplification has higher sensitivity and accuracy compared to the serological tests. Considering the importance of rapid and timely diagnosis of brucellosis to control its clinical complications, the molecular diagnosis method is recommended as a diagnostic method.
Methods: Blood samples were collected from 200 people suspected of brucellosis. The samples were evaluated by serological tests including Rose Bengal test, Wright test, Coombs-Wright test, gel agglutination test, and 2-mercaptoethanol (2ME) test. DNA extraction was done by the phenol/chloroform extraction method. Molecular detection with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method was done using the specific primers of the Omp31 gene. Data were analyzed in SPSS software, version 23 using the analysis of variance.
Results: Of 200 patients, 122 were female and 78 were male with a mean age of 45.17±17.43 years. The results of PCR test for the omp31 gene were positive in 14.5% of cases, which was consistent with the results of serological tests (13.8%). The sensitivity of Wright, Coombs-Wright, 2ME, and gel agglutination tests, compared to PCR, was 89.7, 75.9, 55.2 and 55.2%, respectively. Most of the affected people were housekeepers (41.5%) and urban residents (75.5%). Muscle pain (68%) and leg pain (62.3%) were the most common symptoms. Consumption of non-pasteurized dairy products was the highest risk factor (17%).
Conclusion: The diagnosis of brucellosis by the omp31 gene amplification has higher sensitivity and accuracy compared to the serological tests. Considering the importance of rapid and timely diagnosis of brucellosis to control its clinical complications, the molecular diagnosis method is recommended as a diagnostic method.
Article number: 44.4
Keywords: Brucellosis, Brucella millitensis, Molecular diagnostic techniques, Omp31 gene, Serological tests
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
میکروب شناسی
Received: 2022/12/9 | Accepted: 2023/03/25 | Published: 2023/08/1
Received: 2022/12/9 | Accepted: 2023/03/25 | Published: 2023/08/1
References
1. Tulu D. Bovine brucellosis: Epidemiology, public health implications, and status of brucellosis in Ethiopia. Vet Med. 2022; 13:21-30. [DOI:10.2147/VMRR.S347337] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.2147/VMRR.S347337]
2. Kydyshov K, Usenbaev N, Sharshenbekov A, Aitkuluev N, Abdyraev M, Chegirov S, et al. Brucellosis in humans and animals in Kyrgyzstan. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(7):1293. [DOI:10.3390/microorganisms10071293] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.3390/microorganisms10071293]
3. Golshani M, Buozari S. A review of brucellosis in Iran: Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, control, and prevention. Iran Biomed J. 2017; 21(6):349-59. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.ibj.21.6.349] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Głowacka P, Żakowska D, Naylor K, Niemcewicz M, Bielawska-Drózd A. Brucella - virulence factors, pathogenesis and treatment. Pol J Microbiol. 2018; 67(2):151-61. [DOI:10.21307/pjm-2018-029] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.21307/pjm-2018-029]
5. Waktole H, Aden M, Ashenafi H. Seroepidemiology of camel brucellosis in and around Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. Vet Med Int. 2022; 2022:6624293. [DOI:10.1155/2022/6624293] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1155/2022/6624293]
6. Lukambagire AS, Mendes ÂJ, Bodenham RF, McGiven JA, Mkenda NA, Mathew C, et al. Performance characteristics and costs of serological tests for brucellosis in a pastoralist community of northern Tanzania. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):5480. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-82906-w] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-82906-w]
7. Ma X, Sun GQ, Wang ZH, Chu YM, Jin Z, Li BL. Transmission dynamics of brucellosis in Jilin province, China. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2022; 114:106702. [DOI:10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106702] [DOI:10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106702]
8. Trotta A, Marinaro M, Cirilli M, Sposato A, Adone R, Beverelli M, et al. Brucella melitensis B115-based ELISA to unravel false positive serologic reactions in bovine brucellosis: A field study. BMC Vet Res. 2020; 16(1):50. [DOI:10.1186/s12917-020-02278-7] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/s12917-020-02278-7]
9. Cassataro J, Pasquevich K, Bruno L, Wallach JC, Fossati CA, Baldi PC. Antibody reactivity to Omp31 from Brucella melitensis in human and animal infections by smooth and rough Brucellae. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004; 11(1):111-4. [DOI:10.1128/CDLI.11.1.111-114.2004] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1128/CDLI.11.1.111-114.2004]
10. Bulashev AK, Ingirbay BK, Mukantayev KN, Syzdykova AS. Evaluation of chimeric proteins for serological diagnosis of brucellosis in cattle. Vet World. 2021; 14(8):2187-96.[DOI:10.14202/vetworld.2021.2187-2196] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.14202/vetworld.2021.2187-2196]
11. Erfanian M, Seyyed Nouzadi SM, Jarahi L. Evaluation of diagnostic sensitivity of wright, coombs wright and 2-Mercapto Ethanol in diagnosis of brucellosis. Evidence Based Care. 2013; 2(4):69-74. [DOI:10.22038/ebcj.2013.488]
12. Haghdoost M, Ansari L, Owaysee Osquee H. Brucellacapt test, wright and coombs wright in diagnosis of brucellosis. J Res Clin Med. 2021; 9(15):1-5. [DOI:10.34172/jrcm.2021.0015] [DOI:10.34172/jrcm.2021.0015]
13. Borsa BA, Aldag ME, Yilmaz M, Dalar ZG, Ozalp VC. Comparison of a novel test (ODAK brucella coombs gel test) with commonly used serological tests in human brucellosis. Clin Lab. 2016; 62(9):1671-4. [DOI:10.7754/Clin.Lab.2016.160120] [PMID] [DOI:10.7754/Clin.Lab.2016.160120]
14. Wang Y, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Bai L, Zhao Y, Liu C, et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based assays for the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2014; 13:31. [DOI:10.1186/s12941-014-0031-7] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/s12941-014-0031-7]
15. Moulana Z, Roushan MR, Marashi SM. Evaluation of different primers for detection of brucella by using PCR method. Electron Physician. 2016; 8(11):3222-7. [DOI:10.19082/3222] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.19082/3222]
16. Delam H, Keshtkaran Z, Rezaei B, Soufi O, Bazrafshan MR. Changing patterns in epidemiology of brucellosis in the south of Iran (2015-2020): Based on cochrane-armitage trend test. Ann Glob Health. 2022; 88(1):11. [DOI:10.5334/aogh.3474] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.5334/aogh.3474]
17. Adabi M, Karami M, Keramat F, Alikhani MY, Bakhtiari S. Serological and molecular investigation of human brucellosis in participants of Famenin brucellosis cohort study, Hamadan, Iran. Iran J Microbiol. 2021; 13(3):319-24. [DOI:10.18502/ijm.v13i3.6394] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.18502/ijm.v13i3.6394]
18. Di Bonaventura G, Angeletti S, Ianni A, Petitti T, Gherardi G. Microbiological laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis: An overview. Pathogens. 2021; 10(12):1623. [DOI:10.3390/pathogens10121623] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.3390/pathogens10121623]
19. Al Dahouk S, Nöckler K. Implications of laboratory diagnosis on brucellosis therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011; 9(7):833-45. [DOI:10.1586/eri.11.55] [PMID] [DOI:10.1586/eri.11.55]
20. Dadar M, Alamian S, Behrozikhah AM, Yazdani F, Kalantari A, Etemadi A, et al. Molecular identification of brucella species and biovars associated with animal and human infection in Iran. Vet Res Forum. 2019; 10(4): 315-21. [DOI:10.30466/vrf.2018.89680.2171] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Garshasbi M, Ramazani A, Sorouri R, Javani S, Moradi S. Molecular detection of Brucella species in patients suspicious of Brucellosis from Zanjan, Iran. Braz J Microbiol. 2014; 45(2):533-8. [DOI:10.1590/S1517-83822014005000048] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1590/S1517-83822014005000048]
22. Zeinali A. [A review on the serological and allergical diagnostic methods of brucellosis (Persian)]. Vet Res Bio Pro. 1994; 7(1):145-7. [Link]
23. Hamzavi Y, Khademi N, Ghazi Zadeh MM, Janbakhsh A. [Epidemiology of malt fever in Kermanshah province in 2011 (Persian)]. J Kermanshah Uni Med Sci. 2014; 18(2):e74170. [DOI:10.22110/jkums.v18i2.1604]
24. Amro A, Mansoor B, Hamarsheh O, Hjaija D. Recent trends in human brucellosis in the West Bank, Palestine. Int J Infect Dis. 2021; 106:308-313. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.037] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.037]
25. Mohammadian M, Salehiniya H, Kazaei S, Ramazanpour J, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A. [Epidemiological characteristics and incidence rate of brucellosis in Isfahan Province, Iran, 2012 (Persian)]. J Isfahan Med Sch. 2015; 33(355):1784-95. [Link]
26. Soodejani Taheri M, Lotfi M, Ghaderi A, Reisi A, Mohannadzadeh M. [Epidemiology of brucellosis in Shahr-e- Kord during the years 2010 to 2014 (Persian)]. Pars J Med Sci. 2016; 14(1):1-7. [DOI:10.29252/jmj.14.1.1] [DOI:10.29252/jmj.14.1.1]
27. Lai S, Chen Q, Li Z. Human brucellosis: An ongoing global health challenge. China CDC Wkly. 2021; 3(6):120-3.[DOI:10.46234/ccdcw2021.031] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Saadat S, Mardaneh J, Ahouran M, Mohammadzadeh A, Ardebili A, Yousefi M, et al. Diagnosis of cattle brucellosis by PCR and serological methods: Comparison of diagnostic tests. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2017; 10(2):881-8. [DOI:10.13005/bpj/1181] [DOI:10.13005/bpj/1181]
29. Allen AR, Milne G, Drees K, Presho E, Graham J, McAdam P, et al. Genomic epizootiology of a Brucella abortus outbreak in Northern Ireland (1997-2012). Infect Genet Evol. 2020; 81:104235. [DOI:10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104235] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104235]
30. O'Callaghan D. Human brucellosis: Recent advances and future challenges. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020; 9(1):101.[DOI:10.1186/s40249-020-00715-1] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/s40249-020-00715-1]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2008-1375
pISSN: 1735-7799
Email: journal[at]muq.ac.ir
j.mua.ac[at]gmail.com
