Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:16:05.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the brucellin skin test with the lymphocyte transformation test in bovine brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

C. C. Chukwu
C. C. Chukwu
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathology and Microbiology, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The brucellin skin test and the lymphocyte transformation test were compared in heifers infected with virulent Brucella abortus strain 544, heifers vaccinated against brucellosis and unexposed cattle. Results of the in vitro lymphocyte transformation test were consistently positive for all 9 Brucella-infected heifers while the skin test was consistently positive for 6 of the 9 heifers. In 7 heifers repeatedly vaccinated with B. abortus strain-19 vaccine the in vitro test classified 3 animals as positive whereas the skin test identified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. Four heifers injected with a single dose of B. abortus strain 19 were consistently negative to the lymphocyte transformation test while the skin test classified all the animals as infected during most of the experimental period. The skin test gave strong reactions indicative of Brucella infection in heifers vaccinated with ‘Duphavac’ and ‘Abortox’ vaccines whereas the lymphocyte transformation test was consistently negative with these vaccines. The two tests were negative in unexposed cattle. It was concluded that the in vitro test correlated better with Brucella isolation than the in vivo test did and that the lack of agreement between the results of the two tests is likely to be due to the different antigens used in the assays.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 403 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

REFERENCES

Alton, G. G., Jones, L. M. & Pietz, D. E. (1915).Laboratory Techniques in Brucellosis. World Health Organization Monograph Series, no. 55.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Cl. L., Antczak, D. F. & Winter, A. J. (1984). Evaluation of lympocyte blastogenesis for diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Developments in Biological Standardisation 56, 357–369.Google Scholar
Bascoul, S., Peraldi, M., Merino, A. L., Lacave, C., Cannat, A. & Serre, A. (1976). Stimulating activity of Brucella fractions in a human lymphocyte transformation test. Immunology 31, 717–722.Google Scholar
Cunningham, B., Miler, J. J., Dolan, L., McKeon, F. & O'Meara, M. (1980). Immunological characteristics in cattle of allergens derived from smooth Brucella abortus S99. Veterinary Record 107, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniel, T. M. & Hinz, C. F. (1974). Reactivity of purified proteins and polysaccharides from Mycobaclerium tuberculosis in delayed skin test and cultured lymphocyte mitogenesis assays. Infection and Immunity 9, 44–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fensterbank, R. (1977). Allergic diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. 2. Use of the allergic test in infected herds. Annales de liecherches Vétérinaires 8, 195–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Fensterbank, R. & Pardon, P. (1977). Allergic diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. 1. Conditions for the use of a purified protein allergen: Brucellin. Annales de liecherches Vétérinaires 8, 187–193.Google ScholarPubMed
Hartzman, R. J., Bach, M. L., Bach, F. H., Thurman, G. B. & Sell, K. W. (1972). Precipitation of radioactively labelled samples: a semi-automatic multiple-sample processor. Cellular Immunology 4, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, L. M., Diaz, R. & Taylor, A. G. (1973). Characterization of allergens prepared from smooth and rough strains of Brucella melitensis. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 54, 492–507.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaneene, J. M. B., Anderson, R. K., Johnson, D. W. & Muscoplat, C. C. (1978 d). Brucella antigen preparations for in vitro lymphocyte immunostimulation assays in bovine brucellosis. Infection and Iminunity 22, 486–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaneene, J. M., Anderson, R. K., Johnson, D. W., Muscoplat, C. C., Nicoletti, P., Angus, R. D., Pietz, D. E. & Klausner, D. J. (1978 a). Whole-blood lymphocyte stimulation assay for measurement of cell-mediated immune responses in bovine brucellosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaneene, J. M. B., Anderson, R. K., Nicoletti, P., Brown, R., Christenberry, C. C., Swann, A. I. & Johnson, D. W. (1980 b). Studies on in vitro lymphocyte stimulation assay in cattle naturally infected with Brucella abortus and in cattle vaccinated with Strain 19. American Journal of Veterinary Research 41, 1586–1589.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaneene, J. M. B., Johnson, D. W., Anderson, R. K. & Muscoplat, C. C. (1978 b). Utilization of a specific in vitro lymphocyte immuno-stimulation assay as an aid in detection of Brucella-infected cattle not detected by serological tests. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 8, 512–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneene, J. M. B., Johnson, D. W., Anderson, R. K. & Muscoplat, C. C. (1978 c). Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of purified lymphocyte and whole-blood in vitro lymphocyte stimulation assays in detection of Brucella abortus infection in cattle. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 8, 396–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaneene, J. M. B., Sloane, E. D., Johnson, D. W. & Anderson, R. K. (1980 a). Application of a whole-blood lymphocyte stimulation test in detection of Brucella infection in an outbreak. Veterinary Science Communications 4, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klesius, P. H., Kramer, T. T., Swann, A. I. & Christenberry, C. C. (1978). Cell-mediated immune response after Brucella abortus S19 vaccination. American Journal of Veterinary Research 39, 883–886.Google ScholarPubMed
Live, I. & Stubbs, E. L. (1947). Intracutaneous brucellosis tests in cattle. American Journal of Veterinary Research 8, 380–385.Google ScholarPubMed
Muscoplat, C. C., Chen, A. W., Johnson, D. W. & Alhaji, I. (1974). In vitro stimulation of bovine peripheral blood lymphocytes: Standardization and kinetics of the response. American Journal of Veterinary Research 35, 1557–1561.Google ScholarPubMed
Nowell, P. C. (1960). Phytohaemagglutinin: an initiator of mitosis in cultures of normal human leukocytes. Cancer Research 20, 462–466.Google ScholarPubMed
Oort, J. & Turk, J. L. (1963). The fate of 131I-labelled antigens in the skin of normal guinea pigs and those with delayed hypersensitivity. Journal of Immunology 6, 148–155.Google Scholar
Rook, G. A. W. (1978). Three forms of delayed skin-test response evoked by Mycobacteria. Nature, London 278, 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swiderska, H., Osuch, T. & Brzoska, W. J. (1971). Peripheral blood lymphocyte blast transformation test as applied for the diagnosis of brucellosis. Experimental Medical Microbiology 23, 133–138.Google ScholarPubMed
Thornes, R. D. (1977 a). Chronic human brucellosis and anti-anergic treatment with levamisole. Veterinary Record 101, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornes, R. D. (1977 b). The anergy of chronic human brucellosis. Irish Medical Journal 70, 480–483.Google ScholarPubMed