Meta-analysis of brucellosis vaccinology in natural hosts

Pathogenesis of Brucella ovis in pregnant mice and protection induced by the candidate vaccine strain B. Ovis ΔabcBA

Ovine brucellosis caused by Brucella ovis is a major cause of reproductive failure in sheep. This study aimed to evaluate transplacental infection and pathogenicity of B.ovis wild type strain ATCC 25,840 (WT B.ovis) and the candidate vaccine strain B.ovis ΔabcBA in pregnant mice. A total of 40 BALB/c mice were equally divided into 4 groups: (i) non immunized and uninfected control mice (3/10 mice became pregnant); (ii) non immunized and challenged with WT B.ovis (5/10 pregnant); (iii) inoculated only with B.ovis ΔabcBA (6/10 pregnant); (iv) immunized with B.ovis ΔabcBA and challenged with WT B.ovis (5/10 pregnant). Female mice bred, and five days after visualization of the vaginal plug, they were inoculated intraperitoneally (ip) with 100 µL of sterile PBS, 100 µL of 1 × 10⁶ CFU of B.ovis ΔabcBA, or 100 µL of 1 × 10⁶ CFU of B.ovis WT, according to each group. At the 17th day of gestation, samples of spleen, liver, uterus, placenta, fetus and mammary gland were obtained for bacteriology, histopathology and immunohistochemistry. Non immunized mice challenged with B.ovis WT developed necrotizing placentitis as well as microgranulomas in the liver and spleen. These findings support the notion that B.ovis infection in pregnant mice induces lesions that are similar to those caused by B.abortus in the same animal model. B.ovis ΔabcBA was not recovered from any of the sampled organs, and it did not cause any gross or microscopic lesions, indicating that it is a safe and attenuated strain in this experimental model. In addition, B.ovis ΔabcBA was induced protective immunity as demonstrated by decreased numbers of B.ovis WT in the liver, uterus and fetuses of immunized mice after the challenge with B.ovis WT.

Facing the Human and Animal Brucellosis Conundrums: The Forgotten Lessons

Brucellosis is a major zoonotic disease caused by Brucella species. Historically, the disease received over fifty names until it was recognized as a single entity, illustrating its protean manifestations and intricacies, traits that generated conundrums that have remained or re-emerged since they were first described. Here, we examine confusions concerning the clinical picture, serological diagnosis, and incidence of human brucellosis. We also discuss knowledge gaps and prevalent confusions about animal brucellosis, including brucellosis control strategies, the so-called confirmatory tests, and assumptions about the primary-binding assays and DNA detection methods. We describe how doubtfully characterized vaccines have failed to control brucellosis and emphasize how the requisites of controlled safety and protection experiments are generally overlooked. Finally, we briefly discuss the experience demonstrating that S19 remains the best cattle vaccine, while RB51 fails to validate its claimed properties (protection, differentiating infected and vaccinated animals (DIVA), and safety), offering a strong argument against its current widespread use. These conundrums show that knowledge dealing with brucellosis is lost, and previous experience is overlooked or misinterpreted, as illustrated in a significant number of misguided meta-analyses. In a global context of intensifying livestock breeding, such recurrent oversights threaten to increase the impact of brucellosis.

Efficacy of Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 vaccine strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to recalculate the efficacy of Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 vaccine strains and discuss the main variables associated with controlled trials to evaluate bovine brucellosis vaccine efficacy (VE). The most commonly used vaccine strain was S19, at a dose of 10¹⁰ colony forming units (CFU), followed by RB51 at 10¹⁰ CFU. The most commonly used challenge strain was B. abortus 2308, at a dose of 10⁷ CFU, by the intraconjunctival route. Regarding the meta-analysis, trials were grouped according to the vaccine strain and dose to recalculate protection against abortion (four groups) or infection (five groups) using pooled risk ratio (RR) and VE. Regarding protection against abortion (n = 15 trials), the S19 vaccine at 10⁹ CFU exhibited the highest protection rate (RR = 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.12-0.52; VE = 75.09%, 95% CI: 48.08-88.05), followed by RB51 at 10¹⁰ CFU (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.61; VE = 69.25%, 95% CI: 39.48-84.38). Regarding protection against infection (n = 23 trials), only two subgroups exhibited significant protection: S19 at 10⁹ CFU (RR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.55; VE = 72.03%, 95% CI: 57.70- 81.50) and RB51 at 10¹⁰ CFU (RR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; VE = 57.05%, 95% CI: 30.90-73.30). In conclusion, our results suggest that a dose of 10⁹ CFU for S19 and 10¹⁰ CFU for RB51 are the most suitable for the prevention of abortion and infection caused by B. abortus.