Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 15:11:1440599.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1440599. eCollection 2024.

Effectiveness of the RB51 vaccine in controlling brucellosis in adult beef cows

Carlos Antônio de Carvalho Fernandes  1   2 , Gustavo Henrique Souza Pereira  2 , Jessica Ruiz Pereira  2 , Daniele Cristina Alves  2 , Lucas Souza Dias  2 , João Henrique Moreira Viana  1   3 , João Drumond  4
Affiliations

Effectiveness of the RB51 vaccine in controlling brucellosis in adult beef cows

Carlos Antônio de Carvalho Fernandes et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of brucellosis control and reproductive performance using one or two doses of RB51 strain vaccine.

Methods: This experiment was conducted at two commercial beef farms (A, n = 477; and B, n = 673), which were selected due to their records of endemic brucellosis and a prevalence of 6 to 8% of seropositive cows. An initial serology screening (Day 0) was carried out in all cows using the Rose Bengal test (RB), and presumptive positive results were re-evaluated using a slow agglutination test with 2-mercaptoethanol (2-ME). Seropositive cows (64, 5.6%) were culled. Non-reactive cows were then randomly assigned into three experimental groups: G1, a single vaccination with RB51; G2, two doses of RB51 given 6 months apart; and G3 (control group), no vaccination. Serological tests were carried out on Days 90, 180, 270, and 360. In each evaluation, seropositive cows were removed. The variables related to occurrence of new infections and abortion, as well as those related to subsequent reproductive performance, were analyzed using the SAS software.

Results and discussion: Seropositive cows were still detected in both vaccinated and control groups at 90 days. However, no new infections were detected in G1 at 180 days or in G1 and G2 at 270 and 360 days, whereas new seropositive cows were diagnosed in all exams in G3 (control). Therefore, the cumulative number of new infections was lower in vaccinated than in control cows (0.2% and 0.0%, vs. 3.2% for groups G1, G2, and G3 respectively; p = 0.0002). In farm A the number of days open was greater in the control than in vaccinated groups (p < 0.05), and in farm B the pregnancy rate was lower in the control than in the group vaccinated once (p < 0.05). In summary, vaccination with RB51 in beef cows reduces the occurrence of new cases of brucellosis and improves the reproductive performance. There is no indication that a second immunization, six months after the first, enhances protection or reproductive efficiency.

Keywords: Brucella abortus; cattle; eradication; rough strain; zoonosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CF is the director and GP, JP, DA, LD are employees of Biotran LTDA. JD is employee of MSD Animal Health. MSD also supplied the RB51 vaccine used. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative percentage of cows infected after beginning the study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Godfroid J, Nielsen K, Saegerman C. Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife. Croat Med J. (2010) 51:296–305. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2010.51.296 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Megersa B, Biffa D, Abunna F, Regassa A, Godfroid J, Skjerve E. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and its contribution to abortion in cattle, camel, and goat kept under pastoral management in Borana, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2011) 43:651–6. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9748-2, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Megersa B, Biffa D, Abunna F, Regassa A, Godfroid J, Skjerve E. Seroepidemiological study of livestock brucellosis in a pastoral region. Epidemiol Infect. (2012) 140:887–96. doi: 10.1017/S0950268811001178, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aznar MN, Samartino LE, Humblet MF, Saegerman C. Bovine brucellosis in Argentina and bordering countries: update. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2014) 61:121–33. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12018 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fero E, Juma A, Koni A, Boci J, Kirandjiski T, Connor R, et al. . The seroprevalence of brucellosis and molecular characterization of Brucella species circulating in the beef cattle herds in Albania. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0229741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229741, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources