Survival of <i>Brucella abortus</i> RB51 and S19 Vaccine Strains in Fresh and Ripened Cheeses

Benítez-Serrano, Juan Carlos; Palomares-Resendiz, Gabriela; Díaz-Aparicio, Efrén; Hernández‐Castro, Rigoberto; Martinez-Perez, Laura; Suárez-Güemes, Francisco; Arellano-Reynoso, Beatriz

doi:10.1089/fpd.2022.0001

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The nine persons who participated in the procedures received post-exposure prophylaxis, and none developed brucellosis during the 6-month follow-up period. Besides, Brucella abortus RB51 and S19 is transiently excreted in the milk of vaccinated cattle and can survive throughout the manufacture and conservation processes of both fresh PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES and ripened cheeses [42] which poses a risk of infection through ingestion. In this setting, in 2015 Osman et al reported a serosurveillance study on 100 asymptomatic farmworkers employed in Khartoum, Sudan [43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What risk do Brucella vaccines pose to humans? A systematic review of the scientific literature on occupational exposure

Vives-Soto,

Puerta-García,

Rodríguez-Sánchez

et al. 2024

PLoS Negl Trop Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Currently, vaccination of livestock with attenuated strains of Brucella remains an essential measure for controlling brucellosis, although these vaccines may be dangerous to humans. The aim of this study was to review the risk posed to humans by occupational exposure to vaccine strains and the measures that should be implemented to minimize this risk. Methods This article reviewed the scientific literature indexed in PubMed up to September 30, 2023, following "the PRISMA guidelines". Special emphasis was placed on the vaccine strain used and the route of exposure. Non-occupational exposure to vaccine strains, intentional human inoculation, publications on exposure to wild strains, and secondary scientific sources were excluded from the study. Results Nineteen primary reports were found and classified in three subgroups: safety accidents in vaccine factories that led to an outbreak (n = 2), survellaince studies on vaccine manufacturing workers with a serologic diagnosis of Brucella infection (n = 3), and publications of infection by vaccine strains during their administration, including case reports, records of occupational accidents and investigations of outbreaks in vaccination campaigns (n = 14). Although accidental exposure during vaccine manufacturing were uncommon, they could provoke large outbreaks through airborne spread with risk of spread to the neighboring population. Besides, despite strict protection measures, a percentage of vaccine manufacturing workers developed positive Brucella serology without clinical infection. The most frequent type of exposure with symptomatic infection was needle injury during vaccine administration. Prolonged contact with the pathogen, lack of information and a low adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) use in the work environment were commonly associated with infection. Conclusions Brucella vaccines pose occupational risk of contagion to humans from their production to their administration to livestock, although morbidity is low and deaths were not reported. Recommended protective measures and active surveillance of exposed workers appeared to reduce this risk. It would be advisable to carry out observational studies and/or systematic registries using solid diagnostic criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What risk do Brucella vaccines pose to humans? A systematic review of the scientific literature on occupational exposure

Vives-Soto,

Puerta-García,

Rodríguez-Sánchez

et al. 2024

PLoS Negl Trop Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Azerbaijan is now ranked 13th in the world for the incidence of human brucellosis, with an estimated yearly incidence of over 50 cases per million ( 49 ). Human brucellosis has recently been linked to raw milk consumption and the RB51 vaccination status ( 50 , 51 ). Therefore, the raw milk movement in the United States has been controlled, and numerous states have approved legislation that restricts the selling of raw milk and raw milk products to customers.…”

Section: Brucellosis Worldwidementioning

confidence: 99%

Brucellae as resilient intracellular pathogens: epidemiology, host–pathogen interaction, recent genomics and proteomics approaches, and future perspectives

Dawood,

Elrashedy,

Nayel

et al. 2023

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brucellosis is considered one of the most hazardous zoonotic diseases all over the world. It causes formidable economic losses in developed and developing countries. Despite the significant attempts to get rid of Brucella pathogens in many parts of the world, the disease continues to spread widely. Recently, many attempts proved to be effective for the prevention and control of highly contagious bovine brucellosis, which could be followed by others to achieve a prosperous future without rampant Brucella pathogens. In this study, the updated view for worldwide Brucella distribution, possible predisposing factors for emerging Brucella pathogens, immune response and different types of Brucella vaccines, genomics and proteomics approaches incorporated recently in the field of brucellosis, and future perspectives for prevention and control of bovine brucellosis have been discussed comprehensively. So, the current study will be used as a guide for researchers in planning their future work, which will pave the way for a new world without these highly contagious pathogens that have been infecting and threatening the health of humans and terrestrial animals.

show abstract

“…The hazard for humans is revealed by the number of cases repeatedly detected in this country [ 112 , 120 , 122 , 123 ]. The persistence of RB51 in cheese has been shown under experimental conditions [ 124 ], and at least one human case has been traced to the consumption of unpasteurized cheese [ 125 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of three decades of use of the cattle brucellosis rough vaccine Brucella abortus RB51: myths and facts

Blasco,

Moreno,

Muñoz

et al. 2023

BMC Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cattle brucellosis is a severe zoonosis of worldwide distribution caused by Brucella abortus and B. melitensis. In some countries with appropriate infrastructure, animal tagging and movement control, eradication was possible through efficient diagnosis and vaccination with B. abortus S19, usually combined with test-and-slaughter (T/S). Although S19 elicits anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies that may interfere in the differentiation of infected and vaccinated animals (DIVA), this issue is minimized using appropriate S19 vaccination protocols and irrelevant when high-prevalence makes mass vaccination necessary or when eradication requisites are not met. However, S19 has been broadly replaced by vaccine RB51 (a rifampin-resistant rough mutant) as it is widely accepted that is DIVA, safe and as protective as S19. These RB51 properties are critically reviewed here using the evidence accumulated in the last 35 years. Controlled experiments and field evidence shows that RB51 interferes in immunosorbent assays (iELISA, cELISA and others) and in complement fixation, issues accentuated by revaccinating animals previously immunized with RB51 or S19. Moreover, contacts with virulent brucellae elicit anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies in RB51 vaccinated animals. Thus, accepting that RB51 is truly DIVA results in extended diagnostic confusions and, when combined with T/S, unnecessary over-culling. Studies supporting the safety of RB51 are flawed and, on the contrary, there is solid evidence that RB51 is excreted in milk and abortifacient in pregnant animals, thus being released in abortions and vaginal fluids. These problems are accentuated by the RB51 virulence in humans, lack diagnostic serological tests detecting these infections and RB51 rifampicin resistance. In controlled experiments, protection by RB51 compares unfavorably with S19 and lasts less than four years with no evidence that RB51-revaccination bolsters immunity, and field studies reporting its usefulness are flawed. There is no evidence that RB51 protects cattle against B. melitensis, infection common when raised together with small ruminants. Finally, data acumulated during cattle brucellosis eradication in Spain shows that S19-T/S is far more efficacious than RB51-T/S, which does not differ from T/S alone. We conclude that the assumption that RB51 is DIVA, safe, and efficaceous results from the uncritical repetition of imperfectly examined evidence, and advise against its use.

show abstract

Survival of Brucella abortus RB51 and S19 Vaccine Strains in Fresh and Ripened Cheeses

Cited by 6 publications

References 49 publications

What risk do Brucella vaccines pose to humans? A systematic review of the scientific literature on occupational exposure

What risk do Brucella vaccines pose to humans? A systematic review of the scientific literature on occupational exposure

Brucellae as resilient intracellular pathogens: epidemiology, host–pathogen interaction, recent genomics and proteomics approaches, and future perspectives

A review of three decades of use of the cattle brucellosis rough vaccine Brucella abortus RB51: myths and facts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About