Journal of ISSN: 2373-437XJMEN

Microbiology & Experimentation
Research Article
Volume 1 Issue 2 - 2014
Assessment of Haemato-biochemical Parameters and Therapeutics on Brucella Infected Cattle
Neelam Kushwaha1*, Vijendra Singh Rajora2, Anand Mohan3, Jawahar Lal Singh2 and Santosh Kumar Shukla2
1Division of Medicine, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, India
2Department of Veterinary Medicine, GB Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, India
3Division of Bacteriology and Mycology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, India
Received: April 17, 2014 | Published: June 12, 2014
*Corresponding author: Neelam Kushwaha, Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, GB Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar-263145, Uttarakhand, India, Email: @
Citation: Kushwaha N, Rajora VS, Mohan A, Singh JL, Shukla SK (2014) Assessment of Haemato-biochemical Parameters and Therapeutics on Brucella Infected Cattle. J Microbiol Exp 1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/jmen.2014.01.00012

Abstract

Brucellosis is a contagious systemic bacterial disease of livestock. Antibiotics commonly being used have limited efficacy against the disease. In the present study, therapy with antibiotics on Brucella infected cattle was performed and subsequently haemato-biochemical parameters, detection of anti-Brucella antibodies in both serum and milk by different diagnostics and shedding of Brucella in milk were assessed. Treatment with antibiotics; streptomycin and long acting tetracycline alone and in combination were given for four weeks. Hb, TEC, TLC, neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes count, AST, ALT and SD values were lower whereas, PCV, serum glucose, total protein, albumin and creatinine were higher in Brucella infected cattle. Treatment with combination therapy showed promising results in these animals. Haemato-biochemical parameters were become near to normal in most of animals that received combination therapy. However, not all animals were returned to normal after treatment but a significant numbers in combination therapy were reduced anti- Brucella antibody titre, both in serum and milk. The level of shedding of Brucella in milk had also gone undetectable.
Brucellosis; Cattle; Haemato-biochemical parameters; Oxytetracycline; Streptomycin

Abbreviations

RBPT: Rose Bengal Plate Test; STAT: Standard Tube Agglutination Test; ABR: Abortus Bang Ring; ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay; MRT: Milk Ring Test; PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction; Hb: Haemoglobin; PCV: Packed Cell Volume; TEC: Total Erythrocytes Count; TLC: Total Leucocytes Count; DLC: Differential Leucocytes Count; ALT: Alanine Aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate Aminotranferase; SD: Sorbitol Dehydrogenase; PD-ADMAS: Project directorate on animal disease monitoring and surveillance; RAR: Research Animal Resources

Introduction

Brucellosis is a most common zoonosis in the world, caused by different Brucella species [1]. In cattle, it is caused by B. abortus, also known as contagious abortion [2]. Abortion in last trimester, birth of unthrifty newborn, retained placenta in female and orchitis, epididyimitis in male animals are the common manifestations of brucellosis in animals [3-5] and it may lead to temporary or permanent infertility [6]. Diagnosis on the basis of abortion is, however, equivocal since many pathogens can induce abortion; thus laboratory testing is essential [7]. Various tests viz; Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT), Standard Tube Agglutination Test (STAT), Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Milk Ring Test (MRT) are commonly used for the detection of anti-Brucella antibody [5]. Isolation of the causative agent is most accepted tool for confirmatory diagnosis, but it is time consuming and has reduced sensitivity in chronic stage of infection. Handling of suspected clinical samples will require containment level for group 3 pathogens [5]. Numerous Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) based assays have been developed for the rapid identification of Brucella. It is advantageous to detect DNA of pathogen that rendered biologically safe and hence, reduced the risk of infection to laboratory workers. In addition, PCR is more sensitive than traditional culture method [8].
There is limited evidence on treatment aspect of Brucella infected cattle as well as their haemato-biochemical parameters. Brucella is inaccessible to antibiotics as they are facultative intracellular pathogens. Many antimicrobials are active against Brucella species; however, clinical efficacy does not always correlate with in vitro susceptibility [9]. Treatments for brucellosis have been tried previously but none was found successful [10,11]. Streptomycin acts synergistically with penicillin or tetracycline to inhibit the growth of B. abortus within bovine cells cultured in vitro [12]. Considering the above facts, the present work was intended to determine the efficacy of antibiotic therapy and alteration in the haemato-biochemical parameters if any, in Brucella infected cattle after treatment.

Materials and Methods

A total of 27 cattle which showed antibodies both in serum and milk as well as Brucella DNA in milk were selected for the study. ELISA, RBPT and STAT were employed on serum whereas, MRT and ELISA on milk to detect the anti-Brucella antibodies. Milk samples were processed for detection of pathogen itself in form of its DNA (16S rRNA) by PCR [13]. Reference antigens and serum for RBPT, STAT and, for MRT, Abortus Bang Ring Antigen (ABR Antigen) were procured from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (India). AniGen B. Brucella Ab ELISA kit (Cat. No. EB43-01) (i-ELISA and Milk-ELISA) was procured from Bionote (Korea). Haemato-biochemical parameters, antibody titre in milk/serum and shedding of pathogen in milk were evaluated before and after the therapeutic trial.
Antibody detection
RBPT was performed according to the method prescribed in OIE [5]. Equal volume of both antigen and serum sample was mixed, definite agglutination was taken as positive whereas, no agglutination as negative. STAT was performed as per the method described by Alton et al. [14]. All serum samples were tested up to minimum of five dilutions. Considering the special significance of 50% end point, a control tube was set up to simulate 50% clearing by mixing 0.5 ml antigen with 1.5 ml of phenol saline (0.5%, v/v) in an agglutination tube. All tubes were incubated at 37 °C for 20 hrs before result was observed. The highest serum dilution showing 50% or more agglutination (50% clearing) was considered as the titre of the serum.
MRT was performed on individual milk samples according to the method described in OIE [5]. Dark pink ring above the white milk column was taken as positive whereas, pink colour of the underlying milk exceeds that of the cream layer as negative. i-ELISA and Milk-ELISA was performed by using AniGen B. Brucella Ab ELISA kit. Method mentioned in manual provided with kit was followed. OD of ELISA plate was taken at 450 nm to calculate the percent positivity (%P) of both serum and milk samples. Positive and negative samples were determined based on percent positivity (%P) value. Sera which have %P value ≥25 were taken as positive whereas, samples having %P value <25 were negative. %P of serum was calculated from OD as follow.
% P= OD of serum sample Average OD of standered stronge positive control ×100 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaaguart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbdfwBIjxAHbqedmvETj2BSbqefm0B1jxALjhiov2DaerbuLwBLnhiov2DGi1BTfMBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacPqpw0le9v8qqaqFD0xXdHaVhbbf9v8qqaqFr0xc9pk0xbba9q8WqFfea0=yr0RYxir=Jbba9q8aq0=yq=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@7CF6@
MRT was performed on individual milk samples according to the method described in OIE [5]. Dark pink ring above the white milk column was taken as positive whereas, pink colour of the underlying milk exceeds that of the cream layer as negative. i-ELISA and Milk-ELISA was performed by using AniGen B. Brucella Ab ELISA kit. Method mentioned in manual provided with kit was followed. OD of ELISA plate was taken at 450 nm to calculate the percent positivity (%P) of both serum and milk samples. Positive and negative samples were determined based on Percent positivity (%P) value. Sera which have %P value ≥25 were taken as positive whereas, samples having %P value <25 were negative. %P of serum was calculated from OD as follow.
The milk samples given %P value ≥15 were taken as positive whereas, samples with <15 %P value as negative. It was calculated as follows:
% P= OD of milk sample Average OD of standered positive control milk ×100 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaaguart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbdfwBIjxAHbqedmvETj2BSbqefm0B1jxALjhiov2DaerbuLwBLnhiov2DGi1BTfMBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacPqpw0le9v8qqaqFD0xXdHaVhbbf9v8qqaqFr0xc9pk0xbba9q8WqFfea0=yr0RYxir=Jbba9q8aq0=yq=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@7916@
Polymerase chain reaction
Specific DNA sequence of 905 bp, which belongs to 16S rRNA of B. abortus [13], was targeted for amplification. Oligonucleotides (F4; 5'-TCGAGCGCCCGCAAGGGG-3' and R2; 5'-AACCATAGTGTCTCCACTAA-3') required for amplification of earlier said sequence were taken from published literature [15]. Method described for DNA extraction from milk [16] and PCR [15] were followed as mentioned in their respective literatures. Agarose gel (0.8% w/v in 0.5X Tris-borate EDTA) containing 0.5 µg/ml ethidium bromide was used to electrophorese the amplified PCR products in 0.5X Tris-borate EDTA at 40 Volt/cm.
Haemato-biochemical parameters
Haematological parameters; Haemoglobin (Hb), Packed Cell Volume (PCV), Total Erythrocytes Count (TEC), Total Leucocytes Count (TLC) and Differential Leucocytes Count (DLC) were estimated as methods described by Jain [17]. Biochemical parametes; Glucose, Total Protein, Albumin, Creatinine, Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT), Aspartate Aminotranferase (AST) and Sorbitol Dehydrogenase (SD) were estimated in serum by commercially available kits (Span Diagnostics and Sigma).
Therapeutic trial
Cattle which have anti-Brucella antibodies both in serum and milk as well as presence of pathogen in milk were chosen for therapeutic trial. Three groups were formed; each contained nine cattle and maintained for 4 weeks. Long acting oxytetracycline @ of 25mg/kg intramuscularly, every other day for 4 weeks was given in Group A. Similarly, streptomycin @ of 20mg/kg intramuscularly, every other day for 4 weeks was given in Group B. While in Group C, long acting oxytetracycline @ 25mg/kg combined with streptomycin @ 20mg/kg were injected intramuscularly every other day for two weeks and further, oxytetracycline at the same dosage without streptomycin for two weeks. A control group of three animals, all were negative for anti-Brucella antibodies both in serum and milk as well as no pathogen found in milk were maintained for 4 weeks without any treatment given.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis between respective means for various parameters was performed using ANOVA and t-test, as per the method described by Snedecor and Cochran [18] at 5% level of significance.

Results

Cattle found positive for antibodies both in serum and milk as well as presence of pathogen in milk was selected for the therapeutic trail. Treatment efficacies were evaluated on the basis of haemato-biochemical parameters, detection of antibodies both in milk and serum and shedding of pathogen in milk, before and after the treatments.
Brucella infected cattle showed; lower Hb, TEC, TLC, neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes and monocytes count whereas, PCV was higher than the respective value from control group (Table 1). The biochemical study in the Brucella infected cattle showed higher level of serum glucose, total protein, albumin and creatinine but, AST, ALT and SD values were lower than the respective value from control group (Table 2).

Parameters

Before treatment

After treatment

Control

(n=3)

Group A (n=9)

Group B (n=9)

Group C (n=9)

Control (n=3)

Group A (n=9)

Group B (n=9)

Group C (n=9)

Hb

(g/L)

135.3

±11.00

98.0

±10.48a

99.5

±09.78

99.5

±10.38a

144.0

±08.70

99.5

±10.50a

105.1

±10.95

116.5

±14.16a

PCV

(L/L)

0.38

±0.61

0.39

±0.02

0.40

±0.02

0.39

±0.02

0.39

±0.02

0.40

±0.02

0.41

±0.01

0.40

±0.02

TEC

(X 1012 / L)

7.90

±0.85

6.41

±0.53

6.42

±0.61a

6.37

±0.69a

7.96

±0.75

6.44

±0.52

6.51

±0.63a

6.45

±0.62a

TLC

(X 109/L)

8.2

±0.56

3.26

±0.24

3.35

±0.29

3.85

±0.09a

8.26

±0.51

3.27

±0.25

3.38

±0.25

4.16

±0.11a

Neutrophil

(X 109/L)

2.96

±0.21

2.62

±0.52

2.6

±0.20

2.73

±0.31

3.03

±0.31

2.67

±.47

2.62

±0.19

2.76

±0.32

Esinophil

(X 109/L)

1.06

±0.15

0.84

±0.11

0.88

±0.16

0.85

±0.12

1.1

±0.20

0.85

±0.13

0.89

±0.15

0.87

±0.14

Lymphocyte

(X 109/L)

3.63

±0.38

1.97

±0.40a

1.96

±0.41

1.94

±0.39a

3.88

±0.42

2.02

±0.42a

2.00

±0.41

2.03

±0.41a

Monocyte

(X 109/L)

0.30

±0.10

0.153

±0.03

0.15

±0.03

0.158

±0.03

0.33

±0.06

0.158

±0.03

0.16

±0.03

0.161

±0.03

Table 1: Means of respective haematological parameter of animals from respective groups, before and after the therapeutic trial.
aFigures having same superscripts are significant at 5% level of significance for respective parameters, n=number of animals. Hb: Haemoglobin; PCV: Packed Cell Volume; TEC: Total Erythrocytes Count; TLC: Total Leucocytes Count; DLC: Differential Leucocytes Count
Group A, which received long acting oxytetracycline treatment, showed significant increase in level (p<0.05) of Hb, lymphocyte and AST (Table 1 and 2). But, other haemato-biochemical parameters; PCV, TEC, TLC, glucose, total protein, creatinine, albumin, ALT and SD were not significantly altered (p>0.05) after the treatment. RBPT was unable to detect antibody in three cattle (Table 3). Similarly, STAT and ELISA were not able to detect anti-Brucella antibodies in serum samples of four and two animals, respectively after the treatment. Furthermore, five cattle reduced the shedding of pathogen to undetectable level in milk, as it was confirmed by PCR (Table 3). Similarly, MRT and ELISA were given negative results respectively, in five and three cattle after the treatment (Table 3).
Treatment with streptomycin was given in Group B; reduced the anti-Brucella antibodies levels in cattle to undetectable levels in some of them. RBPT and STAT were unable to detect anti-Brucella antibody in three cattle (Table 3). However, two cattle, as screened by ELISA, seem to be free of antibody. Screenings of milk for presence of antibodies were not detected by MRT and ELISA respectively, in five and four cattle (Table 3). Furthermore, PCR failed to detect Brucella DNA in five cattle's milk after therapy. All the haematological and biochemical parameters under study were not altered significantly except TEC (p<0.05) (Table 1 and 2).
In group C, there was reduction in anti-Brucella antibody level in serum and milk to such an extent, RBPT, STAT and ELISA were unable to detect respectively, in five, six and five animals (Table 3). Similarly, MRT and ELISA on milk from six and five animals were negative for antibody, respectively. Furthermore, six cattle shed undetectable amount of pathogen in milk, as it was confirmed by PCR (Table 3). Animals which had received combination therapy, significant increased its level (p<0.05) of Hb, TEC, TLC and lymphocytes counts (Table 1). However, alteration in PCV, neutrophils, eosinophils and monocytes count were non-significant (p>0.05). Biochemical parameters; glucose, total protein and albumin showed significant decrease (p<0.05) but, ALT, AST and SD increased significantly (p<0.05) after therapy (Table 2).

Parameters

Before treatment

After treatment

Control

(n=3)

Group A (n=9)

Group B (n=9)

Group C (n=9)

Control

(n=3)

Group A (n=9)

Group B (n=9)

Group C

(n=9)

Glucose

(mmol/L)

3.33

±0.33

5.07

±0.16

5.04

±0.19

5.027

±0.19a

3.30

±0.36

5.04

±0.17

5.02

±0.19

3.94

±0.48a

Total Protein

(g/L)

74.67

±4.93

92.96

±6.15

93.33

±5.61

92.67

±6.29a

74.43

±4.89

92.46

±6.07

93.05

±5.90

64.33

±6.59a

Albumin

(g/L)

29.00

±2.65

37.77

±1.07

38.53

±0.80

39.03

±0.98a

28.78

±2.55

37.31

±1.32

37.99

±0.84

28.00

±3.25a

Creatinine

(µmol/L)

102.67

±35.22

179.24

±19.47

179.53

±20.25

180.65

±20.36

102.74

±34.26

178.50

±19.41

178.65

±19.41

180.24

±20.11

ALT

(units/L)

15.26

±3.24

7.00

±2.10

6.72

±1.84

6.35

±2.04a

15.90

±2.82

7.16

±1.06

6.78

±1.57

14.98

±2.42a

AST

(units/L)

91.3

±4.53

61.53

±7.73a

60.88

±8.84

59.73

±8.50a

91.99

±4.57

62.04

±7.86a

61.49

±8.84

101.18

±18.02a

SD

(units/L)

9.90

±1.25

2.92

±0.33

2.82

±0.27

2.75

±0.32a

9.93

±1.10

2.95

±0.30

2.85

±0.28

6.47

±0.50a

Table 2: Means of respective biochemical parameters of animals from respective groups, before and after the therapeutic trial.
aFigures having same superscripts are significant at 5 % level of significance for respective parameters, n= number of animals. ALT: Alanine Aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate Aminotranferase; SD: Sorbitol Dehydrogenase

Tests

Group A

(n=9)

Group B

 (n=9)

Group C

(n=9)

RBPT

6

6

4

STAT

5

6

3

i-ELISA (on serum)

7

7

4

MRT

4

4

3

Milk- ELISA

6

5

4

PCR on milk

4

4

3

Table 3: Number of cattle remains positive for concerned attributes in respective diagnostics after the therapeutic trail.
n= number of animals. RBPT: Rose Bengal Plate Test; STAT: Standard Tube Agglutination Test; i- ELISA: Indirect-Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay; MRT: Milk Ring Test; ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction

Discussion

Brucellosis has wide socio-economic impact, especially in countries in which rural income relies largely on animal husbandry [19,20]. In India, it causes approximately Rs. 350 million economic losses [21]. Several studies have confirmed widespread prevalence in different States of India [22-25]. High seroprevalence has been reported in Indian dairy herds [26,27]. Long-term serological studies at national level indicated, 5% cattle infected with brucellosis [28].
Despite the advances made in the diagnosis, vaccination and therapy to control the disease, it is still wide spread and prevalent in many developing countries. There are limited researches on treatment and haemato-biochemical parameters of infected animals. Lowered haematological values such as Hb, TEC, TLC, neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes and monocytes counts were recorded in the present study. Most of earlier studies didn't explore the all haematological parameters in Brucella infected animals. RAR [29] reported lower Hb value than the reference value in the Brucella infected cattle. Intra-cellular position of the Brucella spp. might cause reduction of Hb percentage [30]. Animals such as moose, infected experimentally with B. abortus showed slight lower Hb concentration [31] or within the range of reference value [30]. Some worker has also reported higher Hb concentration in Brucella infected animals [32]. Lymphocyte count was also lowered in Brucella infected animals [32,33]. However, Sikder et al. [30] found higher values of neutrophil, monocyte and eosinophil counts in the B. abortus positive cattle than the standard values. He also found Hb, PCV, TEC, TLC, lymphocytes and basophils values of infected cattle within the reference range. Lymphoid depletion in the thymic cortex in natural and experimental could give lymphopenic condition [33].
Biochemical parameters such as serum glucose, serum total protein, serum albumin, and creatinine, revealed higher value in infected cattle but, other parameter such as AST, ALT and SD were lower than the reference value in the present study. El-Boshy et al. [32] reported significant increases (P<0.05) in serum SD, AST and ALT levels and non-significant variations in creatinine in Brucella infected animals. Forbes et al. [31] confirmed stable and similar haemato-biochemical parameters in moose experimentally infected with B. abortus biovar 1.
Several treatment trials for brucellosis have been previously attempted, but none was entirely successful. The Brucella bacterium is protected from antibiotics since it survives within phagocytic cells of the reticuloendothelial system. Successful treatment needs permeability of drug across the cell wall of bacterium. Present therapeutic trials on Brucella infected cattle showed; long acting oxytetracycline and streptomycin combination gave better results than the drugs given alone. However, they did not cure infection completely. Animals either stopped shedding of pathogen or reduced its level to such an extent to diagnose by test implied. Similarly, antibody level in some of animals reduced to such a level as it was undiagnosed by different diagnostics used both on serum and milk.
Oxytetracycline and streptomycin are capable of penetrating the bacterial cell wall, inhibiting protein synthesis and providing long lasting concentrations in the plasma and hence considered most effective in the treatment of brucellosis [34]. Combination of both has demonstrated synergistic effect in vitro [12]. Long term treatment with high doses of oxytetracycline and streptomycin combination in Brucella infected Neumann's gazelles resulted in eradication of the infection [35]. But, relapse and abortion were noticed frequently in animals which were received antibiotic treatments [36,37]. Streptomycin-tetracycline could be the choice of therapy for brucellosis, particularly in severe cases [38].
Combination therapy of long acting oxytertracycline and streptomycin revealed a significant increase (p<0.05) in Hb, TEC, TLC, lymphocytes count, ALT, AST and SD and significant decrease (p<0.05) in the values of glucose, total protein and albumin and non-significant alteration (p>0.05) in other parameters. Omer et al. [34], shown significant changes in Hb, ALT and glucose, after combination therapy in Brucella infected gazelles. But changes in other haemato-biochemical parameters following the treatment were non-significant.

Conclusion

Long acting oxytertracycline and streptomycin in combination could be used for treatment of Brucella infected cattle, but it needs further validation. Shedding of pathogen in milk or other body secretions of animal should be monitored for longer duration, not only by PCR but also by isolation of bacterium on suitable media. Relapse of infection or abortion in subsequent pregnancy should also monitor to validate the treatments. Use of haemato-biochemical parameters as indicator of Brucella infection is not warranted, as alterations in these parameters are also evidenced in other bacterial infections. Therefore, these alterations should be carefully interpreted to give a final decision. It is better to complement a serological or molecular test to attain a final conclusion.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the Dean Post Graduate Studies, G B Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi for providing the necessary facilities/fund to carry out the study.

References

  1. Pappas G, Papadimitriou P, Akritidis N, Christou L, Tsianos EV (2006) The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis 6(2): 91-99.
  2. Mantur BG, Amarnath S, Shinde RS (2007) Review of clinical and laboratory features of human brucellosis. Indian J Med Microbiol 25(3): 188-202.
  3. Adams LG (2002) The pathology of brucellosis reflects the outcome of the battle between the host genome and the Brucella genome. Vet Microbiol 90(1-4): 553-561.
  4. Radostits OM, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Constable PD (2007) A textbook of the diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and goats. (10th edn), Elsevier Saunders, London, UK, pp. 963-974.
  5. OIE (2012) Bovine brucellosis. In: Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, Vol 1, Chapter 2.4.3, pp. 616-650.
  6. Cutler SJ, Whatmore AM, Commander NJ (2005) Brucellosis--new aspects of an old disease. J Appl Microbiol 98(6): 1270-1281.
  7. Godfroid J, Nielsen K, Saegerman C (2010) Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife. Croat Med J 51(4): 296-305.
  8. Amin AS, Hamdy ME, Ibrahim AK (2001) Detection of Brucella melitensis in semen using the polymerase chain reaction assay. Vet Microbiol 83(1): 37-44.
  9. Hall WH (1990) Modern chemotherapy for brucellosis in humans. Rev Infect Dis 12(6): 1060-1099.
  10. Gwatkin R, Macleod AH (1938) Wheat germ oil in Brucella infection in cattle and Guinea pigs. Can J Comp Med 2(5): 133-136.
  11. Hall WH, Manion RE (1970) In vitrosusceptibility of Brucella to various antibiotics. Appl Microbiol 20(4): 600-604.
  12. Richardson M, Holt JN (1962) Synergistic action of streptomycin with other antibiotics on intracellular Brucella abortus in vitro. J Bacteriol 84(4): 638-646.  
  13. Dorsch M, Moreno E, Stackebrandt E (1989) Nucleotide sequence of the 16S rRNA from Brucella abortus. Nucleic Acids Res 17(4): 1765.
  14. Alton GG, Jones LM, Pietz DE (1975) Laboratory techniques in brucellosis. Monogr Ser World Health Organ (55): 1-163.
  15. Romero C, Pardo M, Grillo MJ, Diaz R, Blasco JM, et al. (1995) Evaluation of PCR and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on milk samples for diagnosis of brucellosis in dairy cattle. J Clin Microbiol 33(12): 3198-3200.
  16. Romero C, Lopez-Goni I (1999) Improved method for purification of bacterial DNA from bovine milk for detection of Brucellaspp. by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(8): 3735-3737.
  17. Jain NC (1986) Hematologic Techniques. In Schalm's Veterinary Hematology. (4th edn), Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 20-48.
  18. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods. (8th edn), Lowa State University Press, Ames, Lowa, USA.
  19. Wadood F, Ahmad M, Khan A, Gul ST, Rehman N (2009) Seroprevalence of brucellosis in horses in and around Faisalabad. Pak Vet J 29(4): 196-198.
  20. Maadi H, Moharamnejad M, Haghi M, (2011) Prevalence of brucellosis in cattle in Urmia, Iran. Pak Vet J 31(1): 81-82.
  21. PD-ADMAS (2012) National control program on brucellosis: aim and strategies. Hebbal, Bengaluru, India.
  22. Patii CS, Hemashettar BM, Nagalothimath SJ (1984) Prevalence of antibodies in sheep and goats of North Karnataka. 33rd Annual Conference of the Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists, India.
  23. Chandramohan CP, Ramadass P, Raghavan N (1992) Studies on bovine brucellosis in an endemic area. Indian Vet J 69: 581-583.
  24. Saini SS, Sharma JK, Kwatra MS (1992) Assessment of some management factors for prevalence of brucellosis among the traditionally managed animal population of Punjab. Indian J Anim Sci 62(9): 832-834.
  25. Shakya S, Joshi RK, Ali SL, Shakya S (1995) Seroepidemiological survey of bovine brucellosis in a village of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Vet J 72(12): 1327-1328.
  26. Chahota R, Sharma M, Katoch RC, Verma S, Singh MM, Kapoor V, Asrani RK (2003) Brucellosis outbreak in an organized dairy farm involving cows and in contact human beings, in Himachal Pradesh, India. Vet Arhiv 73(2): 95-102.
  27. Trangadia BJ, Rana SK, Mukherjee F, Srinivasan VA (2009) Prevalence of brucellosis and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in organized dairy farms in India. Trop Anim Hlth Prod 42(2): 203-207.
  28. Renukaradhya GJ, Isloor S, Rajasekhar M (2002) Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and control/eradication of brucellosis in India. Vet Microbiol 90(1-4): 183-195.
  29. http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/refvalues.html
  30. Sikder S, Rahman SMM, Alim MDA, Das S (2012) Haematological variations in Brucella abortus antibody positive cross-bred cattle at Chittagong, Bangladesh. YYU Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 23(3): 125-128.
  31. Forbes LB, Tessaro SV, Lees W (1996) Experimental studies on Brucella abortus in moose (Alces alces). J Wildl Dis 32(1): 94-104.
  32. El-Boshy M, Abbas H, El-Khodery S, Osman S (2009) Cytokine response and clinicopathological findings in Brucella infected camels (Camelus dromedarius). Veterinarni Medicina 54(1): 25-32.
  33. Enright FM, Walker JV, Jeffers G, Deyoe BL (1984) Cellular and humoral responses of Brucella abortus infected bovine fetuses. Am J Vet Res 45(3): 424-430.
  34. Omer SA, Al-Megrin WAI, Alagaili AN, Elobeid MA, Mohammed OB (2011) A new protocol for the treatment of Brucella melitensis in Neumann's gazelle (Gazella erlangeri) from Saudi Arabia using oxytetracycline and streptomycin. Afr J Biotechnol 10(53): 11075-11080.
  35. Hajia M, Rahbar M, Keramat F (2009) Epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic and treatment aspects of hospitalized Brucellosis patients in Hamadan. Ann Trop Med Anim Hlth 2(2): 42-45.
  36. http://www.atmph.org/article.asp?issn=1755-6783;year=2009;volume=2;issue=2;spage=42;epage=45;aulast=Hajia;type=0
  37. Mccullough NB (1958) Human brucellosis with special reference to the disease in the United States. Ann NY Acad Sci 70(3): 541-556.
  38. Spink WW (1960) Current status of therapy of brucellosis in human beings. J Am Med Assoc 172: 697-698.
  39. Farid Z, Miale A, Omar MS, Van peenen PF (1961) Antibiotic treatment of acute brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis. J Trop Med Hyg 64: 157-163.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy