1. Introduction
Brucellosis in cetaceans was first described in 1994 [1] and is caused by Brucella ceti [2]. Since then, infection and disease associated with B. ceti have been increasingly recognized in many cetacean species worldwide [3,4], and brucellosis is considered an emerging threat for odontocetes and mysticetes [5]. In the Mediterranean Sea, cetacean brucellosis was first diagnosed in 2013, and more cases have been reported since then [6,7,8,9,10], but serological evidence of exposure was already detected in dolphins stranded along the Mediterranean coast of Spain in 1997–1999 [11], suggesting that Mediterranean dolphins were already exposed to the pathogen at that time. Disease due to B. ceti in cetaceans can occur as neurobrucellosis, reproductive disease, spinal diskospondylitis or abscesses (frequently cutaneous and subcutaneous) [4]. However, in many other instances, serological evidence of infection has been found in asymptomatic cetaceans, and B. ceti has been isolated from tissues of apparently healthy cetaceans, suggesting that Brucella-infected cetaceans may overcome initial infection and survive or become Brucella carriers (see for review [3,4]). Health assessment of wild cetacean populations is usually conducted through necropsy of stranded dolphins and laboratory investigation. Since the first description of disease associated with B. ceti in the Catalan Mediterranean coast [8], we have intensified efforts to detect Brucella in stranded cetaceans. In this paper we describe the cases of brucellosis detected in the period 2012 to 2022 in the Northwestern Mediterranean coast. Moreover, we perform an exploratory serological analysis using a commercial cELISA to compare the antibody levels between infected and non-infected animals to determine if animals with Brucella-associated lesions have higher antibody titers than potential subclinical carriers. Serological results were compared by age groups, sex, and cetacean morbillivirus (CeMV) status, with a special emphasis on striped dolphins. CeMV is assessed routinely in all cetaceans, and in Brucella cases, the coinfections were investigated because of the reports of coinfection in other areas [12] and to explore the effect CeMV infection has on anti-Brucella antibody production. The general aims were to provide information about the epidemiology and pathogenesis of B. ceti infection and to evaluate its impact on cetacean species in the area.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cases Investigated and Necropsy Procedure
A total of 123 cetaceans stranded along the Catalan coast during the period 2012–2022 were necropsied at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, according to standard procedures [13]. Necropsied species included striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) (n = 97), common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (n = 11), Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) (n = 10), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) (n = 2), a fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), a pilot whale (Globicephala melas) and a Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris). Condition code ranged from 1 to 3 (animals in overt autolysis were not transported for necropsy) following the scale of Kuiken and García-Hartmann 1991 [14]. Retrieval of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was routinely attempted from the atlanto-occipital joint, or directly from the lateral ventricle after extraction of the brain. Frozen samples and swabs from multiple organs were collected for bacteriological and molecular investigations. A complete set of organs was sampled for histopathology, fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin and routinely processed. Routine immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR for surveillance of CeMV were performed on lung, diaphragmatic lymph node and brain [15]. Cause of death was determined using a combination of computed tomography scan, complete necropsy, routine histopathology of multiple organs, CeMV PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC) and, when required, microbiological culture (see [15] for details). After the determination of the cause of death, animals were classified in different groups: bycatch, neurobrucellosis, CeMV, PEM (polioencephalomalacia of unknown origin), mother–calf separation, infectious/inflammatory causes, sinusitis by Crassicauda grampicola, other and unknown. “Infectious/inflammatory” cause of death comprised peritonitis, septicemia, protozoal infections, severe parasitism (other than C. grampicola), diskospondylitis, mucormycosis, bacterial meningoencephalitis (negative Brucella culture), necrotizing enteritis, erysipelas and meningoencephalitis of unknown origin. “Other” included animals dying from tension pneumothorax, abortion and muscular degeneration.
2.2. Serology for Brucella
Blood retrieval was attempted by cardiac puncture as soon as possible after reception of each cadaver with a 20 mL syringe and a 16G, 1.7 × 133 mm catheter needle (Angiocath™, BD, REF 382259, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and portioned in vacutainer plain tubes. Blood was centrifuged at 2500× g for 10 min, and serum was aliquoted in 1 mL cryotubes and frozen at −80 °C until use.
For the present serological study, available serum samples from 2012 to 2022 (n = 66; 57 striped dolphins, 5 Risso’s dolphins, 2 common bottlenose dolphins, 1 common dolphin and 1 pilot whale) were defrosted (see Supplementary File S1 for all cetacean samples). A commercial blocking ELISA (INgezim Brucella Compac, INGENASA, Madrid, Spain) was used following the manufacturer’s instructions. This competitive ELISA test (Brucella cELISA) is a multispecies kit developed for detection of blocking antibodies against LPS of Brucella abortus in domestic ruminants and swine serum samples, using a peroxidase-conjugated secondary monoclonal antibody directed to the LPS of B. abortus. The dilution of the serum sample for cetaceans is not established for the test and, therefore, sera were diluted as recommended by the manufacturer for ovine and caprine sera (1:5), bovine and porcine sera (1:10), and additionally at 1:20, 1:40, 1:80 and 1:160. Serum of culture-confirmed Brucella-infected cases (n = 8) were further diluted to 1:320, 1:640, 1:1280, 1:2560, 1:5120 and 1:10240. Optical density (OD) values were measured at 450 nm within 5 min after the addition of stop solution using a spectrophotometer (FLx800, Bio-Tek Instruments, Winooski, VT, USA). OD values were used to calculate the final results, read as a percentage of inhibition (PI) in comparison to positive and negative control sera included in the kit, with the formula PI = 100 × [1 − (OD test sample/OD negative control)], where OD = optical density. Following the procedures of the test, a sample was classified as positive if the PI in the well was ≥40%.
The possible association between the level of hemolysis and the Brucella cELISA result was investigated in a non-published preliminary study. Briefly, the level of hemolysis was visually graded in the first dilution of samples when dispensed onto the ELISA plate into group 1 (non-hemolyzed or slightly hemolyzed serum) and group 2 (hemolyzed serum or hemolyzed blood). A comparison of positive and negative results in Brucella cELISA (for 1:20 dilutions and 1:40 dilutions) with the hemolysis score was performed with the Wilcoxon two-sample test (Epi Info Package,
2.3. Brucella Isolation
Brucella isolation, the gold standard for brucellosis diagnosis, was attempted in dolphins with compatible lesions, a positive reaction to Rose Bengal Test or with CeMV infection. Samples used for Brucella isolation were frozen swabs from the lateral cerebral ventricle, periventricular cerebral tissue, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), spleen, mesenteric lymph node, or swabs from spondylytic lesions. Bacterial culture was performed as previously described [8]. Briefly, tissue samples were superficially sterilized, homogenized in saline buffer and cultured in plates of both Farrell and CITA selective media. Isolates were identified as marine Brucella using a Bruce-ladder PCR [16]. Confirmation of Brucella ceti as the isolated species was conducted by a multiplex PCR adapted from Bruce-ladder [16].
2.4. Age Determination
The age of the 57 striped dolphins with serological analysis was estimated using a Gompertz formula established for this species in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea [17]. Subsequently, animals were divided into four age ranges (fetus, calves, juveniles and adults), considering adulthood as being above 6 years [18].
2.5. Data Analysis
Differences between antibody titers in striped dolphins, grouped by their cause of death and age, were compared in two-way contingency tables and using Fisher’s test. R software (version 4.4.0) was used to introduce data and elaborate the tables and StatCalc tool, from EpiInfo (version 7.2.6.0), to retrieve significance of the results. Significance was considered with p-value < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Pathological Investigation
See Supplementary File S2 for biometrical data, cause of death and ancillary test results in the 123 cetaceans. Nine cases of infection by Brucella ceti were detected among the one hundred twenty-three (7.3%) necropsied cetaceans, eight striped dolphins and one common bottlenose dolphin. Seven of the nine dolphins stranded alive and died shortly thereafter (n = 4) or were euthanized due to bad prognosis (n = 3). Five of them showed neurological signs, disorientation or abnormal swimming before death (301/12, 319/16, 368/19, 314/19 and 333/22). Biometric and stranding data from the nine cetaceans with brucellosis are shown in Table 1, and the stranding location is depicted in Figure 1. In two animals, the meningeal turbidity was visible grossly, and in one there was a mild hydrocephalus (Figure 2). Seven striped dolphins had neurobrucellosis, characterized by a severe diffuse or multifocal non-suppurative meningitis or meningoencephalitis, in some cases more intense in the cerebellum and brainstem (Figure 3), and including choroiditis and radiculoneuritis. The other striped dolphin showed a subacute systemic CeMV infection, with an intense encephalitis and less meningeal involvement. Morbilliviral encephalitis was considered the cause of death in this dolphin. The common bottlenose dolphin had ankylosing spondylitis. Macroscopic and microscopic findings of the Brucella-infected cases are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Culture of Brucella
Brucella culture was attempted in 25 cetaceans, including cases with compatible histological lesions, epididymitis or a positive Rose Bengal test. Three additional dolphins with a positive result in a qPCR against Brucella in brain tissue were included. Brucella ceti was isolated in 8/25 cetaceans (six striped dolphins with neurobrucellosis, one striped dolphin with subacute morbilliviral encephalitis, and the common bottlenose dolphin with diskospondylitis). In the striped dolphins, Brucella was cultured from CNS samples (brain, CSF, ventricle swabs, spinal cord), or mesenteric lymph node, and in the bottlenose dolphin, from the diskospondylitic lesion [8] (see Table 2). The diagnosis of neurobrucellosis in an additional striped dolphin (N-368/19) was based on highly compatible lesions and a low Ct result in the Brucella qPCR in CSF. Culture was attempted but the sample was contaminated due to storage problems. A positive Brucella PCR result has prompted the inclusion of this case in the neurobrucellosis group for the serological analysis.
The level of haemolysis did not affect the results of the cELISA in our samples from well-preserved cetacean carcasses, as tested in the preliminary study.
3.3. Serological Investigation
A multispecies cELISA was used in an exploratory study to detect antibodies against the LPS of Brucella sp. in sixty-six cetaceans, with eight of them infected with Brucella. This test has not been validated for cetaceans, and there is no cut-off established to consider one sample as positive or negative. Furthermore, a panel of reference sera of infected and non-infected cetaceans is not available at present. As a consequence, the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the test for cetaceans are unknown. All dolphins were tested at serial dilutions from 1:5 to 1:160, and the last dilution with a PI ≥ 40% was arbitrarily considered the titer of that serum sample, given the fact that the majority of cetaceans (seven of eight) with Brucella isolation were positive at the 1:160 dilution. However, a high proportion of sera (21 of 66; 31.8%) were still positive (PI ≥ 40%) at the 1:160 dilution (see Figure 4). The overall Brucella antibody estimated prevalence was 33.3% for striped dolphins and 31.8% for all cetaceans using the dilution of 1:160 and the cut-off of PI ≥ 40%. Further serum dilutions performed with Brucella-infected cases showed titers of 1:320 (n = 1), 1:640 (n = 2), 1:1280 (n = 2) and 1:5120 (n = 1). The PI for the different dilutions of each cetacean serum is shown in Supplementary File S1.
3.3.1. Serological Results Compared by Cause of Death
Cetaceans investigated serologically are classified by cause of death, species and cELISA results in Table 3. Seropositivity (at dilution 1:160) was only detected in striped dolphins and Risso’s dolphins. Striped dolphins with neurobrucellosis (n = 8) had the highest proportion of seropositives (87.5%). High antibody titers (1:160), however, were also observed in striped dolphins dying from bycatch, CeMV infection, PEM and with cause of death classified as “other”. Animals with neurobrucellosis showed a statistically significant higher proportion of seropositives compared to the groups of bycatch (4/15; 26.6%), striped dolphins not dying from neurobrucellosis (12/49; 24.5%) and the rest of cetaceans (14/66; 21.2%). Regarding other species, only 2/5 Risso’s dolphins were seropositive, a calf dying from maternal separation and a bycaught adult (Table 2). None of the Risso’s dolphins investigated serologically showed lesions compatible with brucellosis, and in the two cases where culture was attempted, the results were negative.
3.3.2. Serology by Age Class
The proportion of seropositive striped dolphins within the different age classes is shown in Table 4. Juveniles, compared to adults, presented a higher proportion of seropositivity (53.9 vs. 29.3%). They comprised the majority of neurobrucellosis cases (25 vs. 4.9%), and this difference was significant with p < 0.019. Seropositivity was 33% for both male and female striped dolphins.
3.3.3. Brucella Serology in CeMV-Infected Cetaceans
A CeMV outbreak in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea accounted for the death of 17 cetaceans from 2016 to 2021, including systemic and chronic CNS cases [15] (see Table 5). The diagnosis was made with histopathology, a positive PCR and/or IHC result in the target organs. High titers against Brucella within this group were frequent in dolphins diagnosed with CeMV-chronic CNS forms. Only one of four CeMV cases, where Brucella isolation was attempted, yielded a positive result (N-319/16, stranded in 2016, with CNS lesions attributed to CeMV). In four of these cases, Brucella culture was attempted and was negative.
4. Discussion
The results show that brucellosis is regularly detected in small cetaceans in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea, and it is the most significant single bacterial cause of death in striped dolphins in the area, confirming previous similar findings from Mediterranean regions [12,15]. B. ceti infection and disease was diagnosed in nine out of one hundred twenty-three (7.3%) necropsied cetaceans, with this figure being the first estimated prevalence of the disease in dolphins from any Mediterranean coastal region. In eight striped dolphins, neurobrucellosis was deemed the primary cause of death, whereas B. ceti was considered a comorbidity in one striped dolphin with systemic CeMV infection and in a common bottlenose dolphin with B. ceti diskospondylitis and a CNS mucormycosis [8].
Understanding the pathogenesis of cetacean neurobrucellosis remains elusive, mostly due to the lack of knowledge about the types of immune responses elicited by B. ceti in healthy and in sick cetaceans. It is generally accepted that Th1 responses are relevant in controlling replication of intracellular bacteria. A strong humoral (Th2-mediated) response seems to be unprotective, with antibodies being a more useful indicator of exposure and infection than a proper defense mechanisms (for review, see [19,20]). Accordingly, a study with B. melitensis in mice suggested that antibodies are not decisive in the control of infection [21], although antibodies against LPS have proven to confer a certain protection in B. abortus [19,22]. As in other mammals, it may be hypothesized that cetaceans with a predominant Th1 response to B. ceti survive the infection, and a shift to a Th2 response constitutes the hallmark of disease progression. However, to our knowledge, the specific T cell response against Brucella sp. has never been measured in dolphins, and the role of serum antibodies against the bacteria is unknown. Several serologic tests have been used in cetacean species, either developed for terrestrial mammals or adapted to marine mammals [11,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. These studies have shown a high seroprevalence of Brucella-infection, ranging from 7.6% to 60%, both in cetaceans and pinnipeds, in many places of the world. However, the Se and Sp of tests designed for terrestrial mammals have not been established for cetaceans, and this knowledge is hindered by the lack of reference panel sera for cetaceans. Bearing in mind these limitations, we applied a commercial cELISA for Brucella diagnosis in cetaceans, not to establish Se and Sp values for this test, but rather to better define prevalence of B. ceti infection and disease, and to understand the practical utility of serologic results when applied to stranded cetaceans.
We observed a higher seropositivity in striped dolphins with neurobrucellosis than in the total of analyzed cetaceans and in striped dolphins dying from other causes, considering seropositivity when PI ≥ 40% at a serum dilution of 1:160. The causes of death in seropositive animals, however, were varied and included infectious and non-infectious causes, indicating that high antibody titers are not a synonym of active, pathology-related Brucella infection. If these cetaceans with high titers represent subclinical forms of latent Brucella infections, inducing humoral immunity remains to be studied. Antibodies in humans with brucellosis can persist several months after the remission of symptoms, clinical relapse [31,32] and, in areas with endemicity, repeated infections [31]. In rats inoculated with B. abortus antigens, antibodies are present a minimum of 120 days [33]. There is a report of a captive bottlenose dolphin with Brucella osteomyelitis with sustained high antibody titers against Brucella [34]. Considering this, it is possible that antibodies would be indicative of chronicity rather than accountable for disease development. In humans, whose pathogenesis of neurobrucellosis is often compared to cetaceans, neurobrucellosis is not the most common manifestation of disease [31,32] and occurs in subacute to chronic infections [35,36]. Thus, it is likely that the diagnosed cases presented in this work represent just the tip of the iceberg of an endemicity of Brucella infection in the Mediterranean, as suggested previously [15] and supported by the high seroprevalence reported in other studies around the world (see [4] for review).
The variable specificity of serological tests is often attributed to cross-reactions with the other LPS of Gram-negative bacteria. In terrestrial animals, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Pasteurella spp., Yersinia enterocolytica [11], Francisella tularensis and Vibrio cholerae [37] have been associated with cross-reactions. Salmonella spp. have been isolated from free-ranging cetaceans [38], but other terrestrial bacteria are not always found in marine environments. In the most common Gram-negative bacteria associated with marine mammals, the pathogenicity and roles in cross-reaction is unclear. In the seropositive dolphins of this paper, Psychrobacter phenylpyruvicus (N-28/21), Photobacterium damselae (N-557/17, N-232/18, N-42/18), Pseudomonas spp. (N-557/17), Vibrio sp. (N-232/18, N-329/18) and Escherichia coli (N-329/18) have been isolated.
The presence of high seropositivity in the cases of neurobrucellosis probably indicates that the humoral response is not effective against the pathogen. In our cases, Th1 response cytokines (IL-1 and TNFα) have been detected in Brucella-induced meningitis by immunohistochemistry, which could suggest a role of this type of response in brucellosis [39]. In these cases, for unknown reasons, cellular response is ineffective, as studied in other species [40]. Polymorphisms in some molecules of the immune system may also play a role in individual susceptibility [41,42].
Interestingly, the authors observed that juvenile striped dolphins were the age group with higher seroprevalence and proportion of neurobrucellosis. In our cases, this may be due to a larger contribution of anthropogenic interactions as cause of death for adults (21/61; 34.4%), diminishing the relative importance of neurobrucellosis. Immune immaturity as a predisposing cause for neurologic form of brucellosis in juveniles, however, cannot be discarded. Another hypothesis is the occurrence of vertical transmission, with consequent latency of Brucella in the tissues and reactivation when new stressors appear for the weaned animal. The results from this work contrast with some serologic studies in human patients, where they found a positive correlation between the age and seroprevalence of Brucella antibodies [43,44]. However, this may be due to adults being more exposed in work environment. In Italy and Costa Rica, similar results have been reported, with 6/8 striped dolphins with brucellosis being juveniles in Italy [12] and 28/51 in Costa Rica [45].
A cluster of Brucella-seropositive dolphins occurred in the period 2018–2021 in CNS-localized forms of CeMV (n = 5) (see Supplementary File S1). The authors speculate that the previous immune suppression of the systemic phase prompted the increased replication and transmission of subclinical Brucella, without causing death, and the persistence of Brucella antibodies until the development of the chronic form of CeMV, when the immunosuppressive phase had resolved. Another hypothesis is that the acute phase transiently limited antibody production. At least in the present cases, there is no direct correlation between the massive immunosuppression in acute CeMV infection and the development of neurobrucellosis. In other publications, the two coinfections are more frequent, with 4/8 striped dolphins testing positive for both pathogens [12], although in others there was no correlation [46].
5. Conclusions
A seroprevalence of 31.8% against Brucella LPS antigens in cetaceans from the Catalan coast of the Mediterranean has been detected. This percentage is significantly higher in cetaceans with neurobrucellosis (87.5%), but there are also high titers in animals with other causes of death. Seropositive species include striped dolphins and Risso’s dolphins. The prevalence of disease associated with Brucella ceti was 7.3%.
The cELISA designed for ruminants and pigs may be a potentially sensitive method in the serum samples of cetaceans to predict neurobrucellosis, but the specificity is probably low. This may reflect a proportion of subclinical carriers of the bacteria or the occurrence of cross-reactions. Cetaceans with chronic forms of CeMV seem to have higher antibody titers against Brucella. CeMV infection, in the acute immunosuppressive form, may enhance Brucella replication in carrier individuals and increase the horizontal transmission of the bacteria. More efforts are needed to dilucidate the epidemiology of the infection and the latency of bacteria in target organs. Research must continue to better understand this disease epidemiology and pathogenesis, a significant cause of mortality in our coast with the potential to alter the population dynamics of these protected species.
Conceptualization, M.D.; methodology, M.D. and L.M.; validation, M.D.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, M.D., S.W., L.P., L.G., A.P. and L.M.; resources, M.D.; data curation, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D., L.M. and M.C.-S.; writing—review and editing, A.P., S.W. and M.C.-S.; visualization, L.M.; supervision, M.D.; project administration, M.D.; funding acquisition, M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable (animals included in this study stranded in the coast and died naturally or were euthanized under authorized veterinary services).
Data supporting reported results can be found in
We thank Blanca Pérez and Aida Neira from the Servei de Diagnòstic de Patologia Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Maite Martin and Marta Perez. We thank the brucellosis research group from CITA de Aragón (MJ de Miguel, S. Serrano, S. Andrés-Barranco and PM Muñoz) for the culture and identification of Brucella isolates. Thanks to Silvio Špičić Laboratory for Bacterial Zoonoses, Croatian Veterinary Institute, Zagreb, Croatia ST 27 for kindly providing DNA of Brucella ceti CRO350.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Map showing the stranding location of 9 cetaceans with Brucella infection, 7/9 of them with neurobrucellosis.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Gross findings in striped dolphins with neurobrucellosis. Scale is in cm. (A) Brain, fresh, dorsal view. Cerebellar meninges are turbid. Histologically, there was a lymphoplasmacytic meningitis. Case N-333/22. (B) Brain, formalin-fixed. Mild dilation of the ventricular system (hydrocephalus). Case N-314/19.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Spinal cord and meninges, hematoxylin and eosin stain. A severe subacute-chronic lymphoplasmacytic meningitis is the hallmark of neurobrucellosis. Case N-333/22.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Antibody titers against Brucella using a cELISA in 66 cetaceans highlighting Brucella-infected cases. Vertical axis shows the absolute number of animals.
Biometric data and stranding information of the 9 dolphins with brucellosis. J = juvenile. Ad = adult. D = found dead. A = stranded alive. All animals are striped dolphins except N-275/12, which is a common bottlenose dolphin.
| ID | Date | Place of Stranding | Age Class | Age Estimation | Length (cm) | Weight (kg) | Sex | A/D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N-275/12 | 23 May 2012 | Badalona | Ad | - | 300 | Unknown | M | D |
| N-301/12 | 3 June 2012 | Cunit | Ad | 6.25 | 184 | 54.5 | F | A |
| N-260/16 | 19 June 2016 | Sant Carles de la Ràpita | J | 3.88 | 170 | 39.5 | F | D |
| N-319/16 | 8 September 2016 | Tarragona | J | 5.35 | 180 | 47 | F | A |
| N-168/17 | 18 April 2017 | L’Escala | Ad | 10.39 | 193 | 79 | M | A |
| N-274/18 | 24 June 2018 | Sant Jaume d’Enveja | J | 2.43 | 152 | 38 | M | A |
| N-314/19 | 1 September 2019 | Vilanova i la Geltrú | J | 2.8 | 159 | 41 | F | A |
| N-368/19 | 12 October 2019 | Cambrils | J | 5.23 | 175 | 47 | M | A |
| N-333/22 | 22 September 2022 | Llacuna dels Alfacs | Ad | 6.15 | 180 | 47.5 | M | A |
Antibody titers in the cELISA against Brucella LPS in serum samples of 66 cetaceans. The column on the right (%Pos) shows the percentage of seropositives (PI ≥ 40% at dilution 1:160) in each group. * In one dolphin, the cause of death was encephalitis by CeMV. ♦ Chronic forms of CeMV stranded in the period 2018–2021. Sc = Stenella coeruleoalba; Gg = Grampus griseus; Tt = Tursiops truncatus; Dd = Delphinus delphis; Gm = Globicephala melas.
| Species | Cause of Death | n | Antibody Titer | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >1:5 | 1:5 | 1:10 | 1:20 | 1:40 | 1:80 | 1:160 | %Pos | |||
| Sc | Neurobrucellosis * | 8 | 1 | 7 | 87.5% | |||||
| Bycatch | 15 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 26.6% | ||
| CeMV | 12 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 ♦ | 33.3% | |||
| Infectious/inflammatory | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0% | |||
| PEM | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50% | |||||
| Mother–calf separation | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0% | ||||||
| Other | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50% | |||||
| Unknown | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0% | ||||||
| TOTAL | 57 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 33.3% | |
| Gg | Sinusitis Crassicauda | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0% | |||||
| Bycatch | 1 | 1 | 100% | |||||||
| Mother–calf separation | 1 | 1 | 100% | |||||||
| TOTAL | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 40% | |||||
| Tt | Mother–calf separation | 1 | 1 | 0% | ||||||
| Infectious/inflammatory | 1 | 1 | 0% | |||||||
| TOTAL | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0% | ||||||
| Dd | Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0% | ||||||
| Gm | CeMV | 1 | 1 | 0% | ||||||
| TOTAL | 66 | 45 | 21 | 31.8% | ||||||
Seropositivity for Brucella (left column) and neurobrucellosis cases (right column) by age class. Serum was available in n = 57 striped dolphins. Right column shows the proportion of neurobrucellosis as cause of death in all striped dolphins, with or without serological analysis.
| Seropositives (%) | Neurobrucellosis (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Adults | 12/41 (29.3%) | 3/61 (4.9%) |
| Juveniles | 7/13 (53.9%) | 5/20 (25%) |
| Calves | 0/3 (0%) | 0/13 (0%) |
| Fetus | 0 | 0/1 (0%) |
| Total | 19/57 (33.3%) | 8/97 (8.2%) |
Antibody titers against Brucella spp. in cetaceans infected with CeMV. * Brucella coinfection. Sc = Stenella coeruleoalba; Gm = Globicephala melas; J = juvenile; Ad = Adult.
| ID | Species | Age Class | CeMV Form | Titer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N-319/16 | Sc | J | Systemic * | 1/160 |
| N-044/17 | Sc | J | Systemic | >1:5 |
| N-045/17 | Sc | J | Systemic | >1:5 |
| N-077/17 | Sc | J | Systemic | >1:5 |
| N-454/17 | Sc | J | Systemic | >1:5 |
| N-488/17 | Sc | Ad | Systemic | 1/5 |
| N-497/17 | Sc | Ad | Systemic | 1/10 |
| N-604/17 | Sc | Ad | Chronic | >1:5 |
| N-001/18 | Sc | Ad | Chronic | 1/40 |
| N-232/18 | Sc | J | Chronic | 1/160 |
| N-293/18 | Sc | Ad | Chronic | 1/160 |
| N-362/18 | Sc | Ad | Chronic | 1/160 |
| N-361/19 | Sc | J | Chronic | 1/160 |
| N-334/21 | Sc | Ad | Chronic | 1/80 |
| N-023/21 | Gm | J | Chronic | >1:5 |
Summary of the signalment and pathological findings in 8 striped dolphins and a bottlenose dolphin (N-275/12) (*, previously published in [
| ID | Macroscopic Lesions | Histopathology | Brucella Culture | Others | Cause of Death | Available Serum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N-275/12 * | Chronic suppurative diskospondylitis | Mycotic pyogranulomatous-necrotizing | Positive (vertebral abscess) | Mycotic encephalitis | Mycotic encephalitis | No |
| N-301/12 * | Not relevant | Non-suppurative meningoencephalitis, diffuse, more intense in cerebellum, brainstem and spinal cord; choroiditis; radiculoneuritis | Positive (brain) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-260/16 | Emaciation; cerebral edema; absence of recent ingesta | Non-suppurative meningoencephalitis, diffuse, more intense in brainstem; choroiditis; radiculoneuritis, multifocal and milder | Positive (brain) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-319/16 | Low body condition; absence of recent ingesta; meningeal congestion | Non-suppurative meningoencephalitis | Positive (brain, ventricle swab) | CeMV intensely positive (RT-PCR and IHC) | CeMV encephalitis | Yes |
| N-168/17 | Absence of recent ingesta; meningeal and CSF turbidity | Non-suppurative meningitis, more intense in brainstem and cerebellum | Positive (lateral ventricle swab, spinal cord, mesenteric LN, brain, CSF) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-274/18 | Loss of body condition; brain edema and meningeal hemorrhage | Non-suppurative meningitis, diffuse, with multifocal encephalitis; choroiditis | Positive (lateral ventricle swab) | Aeromonas sobria and P. damselae in lung, liver, CNS | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-314/19 | CSF turbidity; brain edema and meningeal hemorrhage; mild hydrocephalus | Non-suppurative meningoencephalitis, more intense in brainstem, cerebellum and thalamus; choroiditis; radiculoneuritis, multifocal and milder | Positive (CSF) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-368/19 | Emaciation; absence of recent ingesta; CSF turbidity | Non-suppurative meningitis, localized in brainstem and, with less intensity, cerebellum | Negative (contaminated sample) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
| N-333/22 | Slight loss of body condition; absence of regent ingesta; brain edema; meningeal and CSF turbidity | Non-suppurative meningitis, localized in brainstem and cerebellum, choroiditis | Positive (brain, CSF) | - | Neurobrucellosis | Yes |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at
References
1. Ewalt, D.R.; Payeur, J.B.; Martin, B.M.; Cummins, D.R.; Miller, W.G. Characteristics of a Brucella Species from a Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.; 1994; 6, pp. 448-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104063879400600408] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7858024]
2. Foster, G.; Osterman, B.S.; Godfroid, J.; Jacques, I.; Cloeckaert, A. Brucella ceti Sp. Nov. and Brucella pinnipedialis Sp. Nov. for Brucella strains with Cetaceans and Seals as Their Preferred Hosts. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.; 2007; 57, pp. 2688-2693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.65269-0]
3. Nymo, I.H.; Tryland, M.; Godfroid, J. A Review of Brucella Infection in Marine Mammals, with Special Emphasis on Brucella pinnipedialis in the Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata). Vet. Res.; 2011; 42, 93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9716-42-93] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21819589]
4. Guzmán-Verri, C.; González-Barrientos, R.; Hernández-Mora, G.; Morales, J.-A.; Baquero-Calvo, E.; Chaves-Olarte, E.; Moreno, E. Brucella ceti and Brucellosis in Cetaceans. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.; 2012; 2, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22919595]
5. Van Bressem, M.; Raga, A.; Di Guardo, G.; Jepson, P.; Duignan, P.; Siebert, U.; Barrett, T.; Santos, M.; Moreno, I.; Siciliano, S. et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases in Cetaceans Worldwide and the Possible Role of Environmental Stressors. Dis. Aquat. Organ.; 2009; 86, pp. 143-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao02101]
6. Alba, P.; Terracciano, G.; Franco, A.; Lorenzetti, S.; Cocumelli, C.; Fichi, G.; Eleni, C.; Zygmunt, M.S.; Cloeckaert, A.; Battisti, A. The Presence of Brucella ceti ST26 in a Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) with Meningoencephalitis from the Mediterranean Sea. Vet. Microbiol.; 2013; 164, pp. 158-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.01.023] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23419820]
7. Garofolo, G.; Zilli, K.; Troiano, P.; Petrella, A.; Marotta, F.; Di Serafino, G.; Ancora, M.; Di Giannatale, E. Brucella ceti from Two Striped Dolphins Stranded on the Apulia Coastline, Italy. J. Med. Microbiol.; 2014; 63, pp. 325-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.065672-0]
8. Isidoro-Ayza, M.; Ruiz-Villalobos, N.; Pérez, L.; Guzmán-Verri, C.; Muñoz, P.M.; Alegre, F.; Barberán, M.; Chacón-Díaz, C.; Chaves-Olarte, E.; González-Barrientos, R. et al. Brucella ceti Infection in Dolphins from the Western Mediterranean Sea. BMC Vet. Res.; 2014; 10, 206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-014-0206-7]
9. Cvetnić, Ž.; Duvnjak, S.; Đuras, M.; Gomerčić, T.; Reil, I.; Zdelar-Tuk, M.; Špičić, S. Evidence of Brucella Strain ST27 in Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Europe. Vet. Microbiol.; 2016; 196, pp. 93-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.10.013]
10. Grattarola, C.; Petrella, A.; Lucifora, G.; Di Francesco, G.; Di Nocera, F.; Pintore, A.; Cocumelli, C.; Terracciano, G.; Battisti, A.; Di Renzo, L. et al. Brucella ceti Infection in Striped Dolphins from Italian Seas: Associated Lesions and Epidemiological Data. Pathogens; 2023; 12, 1034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12081034]
11. Van Bressem, M.; Van Waerebeek, K.; Raga, J.A.; Godfroid, J.; Brew, S.D.; MacMillan, A.P. Serological Evidence of Brucella Species Infection in Odontocetes from the South Pacific and the Mediterranean. Vet. Rec.; 2001; 148, pp. 657-661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.148.21.657]
12. Garofolo, G.; Petrella, A.; Lucifora, G.; Di Francesco, G.; Di Guardo, G.; Pautasso, A.; Iulini, B.; Varello, K.; Giorda, F.; Goria, M. et al. Occurrence of Brucella ceti in Striped Dolphins from Italian Seas. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0240178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240178]
13. Pugliares, K.R.; Bogomolni, A.; Touhey, K.M.; Herzig, S.M.; Harry, C.T.; Moore, M.J. Marine Mammal Necropsy: An Introductory Guide for Stranding Responders and Field Biologists; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: Woods Hole, MA, USA, 2007.
14. Kuiken, T.; García-Hartmann, M. Proceedings of the First European Cetacean Society Workshop on Cetacean Pathology: Dissection Techniques and Tissue Sampling, Leiden, The Netherlands, 13–14 September 1991; European Cetacean Society: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1991; 39.
15. Cuvertoret-Sanz, M.; López-Figueroa, C.; O’Byrne, A.; Canturri, A.; Martí-Garcia, B.; Pintado, E.; Pérez, L.; Ganges, L.; Cobos, A.; Abarca, M. et al. Causes of Cetacean Stranding and Death on the Catalonian Coast (Western Mediterranean Sea), 2012–2019. Dis. Aquat. Organ.; 2020; 142, pp. 239-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao03550]
16. López-Goñi, I.; García-Yoldi, D.; Marín, C.M.; De Miguel, M.J.; Barquero-Calvo, E.; Guzmán-Verri, C.; Albert, D.; Garin-Bastuji, B. New Bruce-Ladder Multiplex PCR Assay for the Biovar Typing of Brucella suis and the Discrimination of Brucella suis and Brucella canis. Vet. Microbiol.; 2011; 154, pp. 152-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.06.035] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21782356]
17. Calzada, N.; Aguilar, A.; Grau, E.; Lockyer, C. Patterns of Growth and Physical Maturity in the Western Mediterranean Striped Dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba (Cetacea: Odontoceti). Can. J. Zool.; 1997; 75, pp. 632-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z97-078]
18. Calzada, N.; Aguilar, A. Flipper Development in the Mediterranean Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). Anat. Rec.; 1996; 245, pp. 708-714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(199608)245:4<708::AID-AR11>3.0.CO;2-T]
19. Dorneles, E.M.S.; Teixeira-Carvalho, A.; Araújo, M.S.S.; Sriranganathan, N.; Lage, A.P. Immune Response Triggered by Brucella Abortus Following Infection or Vaccination. Vaccine; 2015; 33, pp. 3659-3666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.057] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048781]
20. De Figueiredo, P.; Ficht, T.A.; Rice-Ficht, A.; Rossetti, C.A.; Adams, L.G. Pathogenesis and Immunobiology of Brucellosis. Am. J. Pathol.; 2015; 185, pp. 1505-1517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.03.003]
21. Dadelahi, A.S.; Abushahba, M.F.N.; Ponzilacqua-Silva, B.; Chambers, C.A.; Moley, C.R.; Lacey, C.A.; Dent, A.L.; Skyberg, J.A. Interactions between B Cells and T Follicular Regulatory Cells Enhance Susceptibility to Brucella Infection Independent of the Anti-Brucella Humoral Response. PLoS Pathog.; 2023; 19, e1011672. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1011672] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37721965]
22. Cloeckaert, A.; Jacques, I.; Bosseray, N.; Limet, J.N.; Bowden, R.; Dubray, G.; Plommet, M. Protection Conferred on Mice by Monoclonal Antibodies Directed against Outer-Membrane-Protein Antigens of Brucella. J. Med. Microbiol.; 1991; 34, pp. 175-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00222615-34-3-175]
23. Hernández-Mora, G.; Palacios-Alfaro, J.D.; González-Barrientos, R. Wildlife Reservoirs of Brucellosis: Brucella in Aquatic Environments. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot.; 2013; 32, pp. 89-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.32.1.2194] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23837368]
24. CMeegan, J.; Field, C.; Sidor, I.; Romano, T.; Casinghino, S.; Smith, C.R.; Kashinsky, L.; Fair, P.A.; Bossart, G.; Wells, R. et al. Development, Validation, and Utilization of a Competitive Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Detection of Antibodies against Brucella Species in Marine Mammals. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.; 2010; 22, pp. 856-862. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104063871002200603] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21088168]
25. Prenger-Berninghoff, E.; Siebert, U.; Stede, M.; König, A.; Weiß, R.; Baljer, G. Incidence of Brucella Species in Marine Mammals of the German North Sea. Dis. Aquat. Organ.; 2008; 81, pp. 65-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao01920]
26. Lynch, M.; Duignan, P.J.; Taylor, T.; Nielsen, O.; Kirkwood, R.; Gibbens, J.; Arnould, J.P.Y. Epizootiology of Brucella Infection in Australian Fur Seals. J. Wildl. Dis.; 2011; 47, pp. 352-363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-47.2.352] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21441188]
27. Norman, S.A.; Delaney, M.A.; Haman, K.H.; Thomas, A.C.; Godfroid, J.; Larsen, A.K.; Nymo, I.H.; Robbe-Austerman, S.; Quance, C.; Rhyan, J.C. et al. Application of Real-Time Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Marine Brucella Spp. in Fish. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.; 2018; 30, pp. 150-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1040638717733024] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28985698]
28. Hoover-Miller, A.; Dunn, J.; Field, C.; Blundell, G.; Atkinson, S. Seroprevalence of Brucella Antibodies in Harbor Seals in Alaska, USA, with Age, Regional, and Reproductive Comparisons. Dis. Aquat. Organ.; 2017; 126, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao03153]
29. Kershaw, J.; Stubberfield, E.; Foster, G.; Brownlow, A.; Hall, A.; Perrett, L. Exposure of Harbour Seals Phoca vitulina to Brucella in Declining Populations across Scotland. Dis. Aquat. Organ.; 2017; 126, pp. 13-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao03163] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28930081]
30. Kroese, M.V.; Beckers, L.; Bisselink, Y.J.W.M.; Brasseur, S.; Van Tulden, P.W.; Koene, M.G.J.; Roest, H.I.J.; Ruuls, R.C.; Backer, J.A.; IJzer, J. et al. Brucella pinnipedialis in Grey Seals (Halichoerus gryphus) and Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Netherlands. J. Wildl. Dis.; 2018; 54, 439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7589/2017-05-097]
31. Ruiz-Mesa, J.D.; Sánchez-Gonzalez, J.; Reguera, J.M.; Martín, L.; Lopez-Palmero, S.; Colmenero, J.D. Rose Bengal Test: Diagnostic Yield and Use for the Rapid Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis in Emergency Departments in Endemic Areas. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.; 2005; 11, pp. 221-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01063.x]
32. Casanova, A.; Ariza, J.; Rubio, M.; Masuet, C.; Díaz, R. BrucellaCapt versus Classical Tests in the Serological Diagnosis and Management of Human Brucellosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol.; 2009; 16, pp. 844-851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00348-08]
33. Khatun, M.; Islam, A.; Baek, B.K. Comparative Analysis of Humoral Immune Response and Cognate Antigen Detection in Experimentally Infected Sprague Dawley Rats with Brucella abortus Biotype 1. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis.; 2024; 24, pp. 27-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2023.0021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37955673]
34. Goertz, C.E.C.; Frasca, S.; Bohach, G.A.; Cowan, D.F.; Buck, J.D.; French, R.A.; De Guise, S.; Maratea, J.; Hinckley, L.; Ewalt, D. et al. Brucella Sp. Vertebral Osteomyelitis with Intercurrent Fatal Staphylococcus aureus Toxigenic Enteritis in a Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.; 2011; 23, pp. 845-851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1040638711407683] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908337]
35. Zhao, S.; Cheng, Y.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, X.; Shi, S. Treatment Efficacy and Risk Factors of Neurobrucellosis. Med. Sci. Monit.; 2016; 22, pp. 1005-1012. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.897947] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27018084]
36. Soares, C.N.; Angelim, A.I.M.; Brandão, C.O.; Santos, R.Q.; Mehta, R.; Silva, M.T.T.D. Neurobrucellosis: The Great Mimicker. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop.; 2022; 55, e0567-2021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0567-2021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35416876]
37. Solís García Del Pozo, J.; Lorente Ortuño, S.; Navarro, E.; Solera, J. Detection of IgM Antibrucella Antibody in the Absence of IgGs: A Challenge for the Clinical Interpretation of Brucella Serology. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.; 2014; 8, e3390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003390] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474572]
38. Grattarola, C.; Gallina, S.; Giorda, F.; Pautasso, A.; Ballardini, M.; Iulini, B.; Varello, K.; Goria, M.; Peletto, S.; Masoero, L. et al. First Report of Salmonella 1,4,[5],12:I:- In Free-Ranging Striped Dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba), Italy. Sci. Rep.; 2019; 9, 6061. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42474-6]
39. Rebollada-Merino, A.; Giorda, F.; Pumarola, M.; Martino, L.; Gomez-Buendia, A.; Romani-Cremaschi, U.; Casalone, C.; Mattioda, V.; Di Nocera, F.; Lucifora, G. et al. Neurobrucellosis (Brucella ceti) in Striped Dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba): Immunohistochemical Studies on Immune Response and Neuroinflammation. Vet. Pathol.; 2024; 03009858241250336.online ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03009858241250336]
40. Moreno, E.; Barquero-Calvo, E. The Role of Neutrophils in Brucellosis. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.; 2020; 84, e00048-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00048-20]
41. Bravo, M.J.; Colmenero, J.D.; Martín, J.; Alonso, A.; Caballero, A. Polymorphism of the Transmembrane Region of the MICA Gene and Human Brucellosis. Tissue Antigens; 2007; 69, pp. 358-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0039.2007.00823.x]
42. Fu, J.; He, H.-Y.; Ojha, S.C.; Shi, H.; Sun, C.-F.; Deng, C.-L.; Sheng, Y.-J. Association of IL-6, IL-10 and TGF-Β1 Gene Polymorphisms with Brucellosis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Microb. Pathog.; 2019; 135, 103640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103640]
43. Islam, M.A.; Khatun, M.M.; Werre, S.R.; Sriranganathan, N.; Boyle, S.M. A Review of Brucella Seroprevalence among Humans and Animals in Bangladesh with Special Emphasis on Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Control Opportunities. Vet. Microbiol.; 2013; 166, pp. 317-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.06.014] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23867082]
44. Abo-Shehada, M.N.; Odeh, J.S.; Abu-Essud, M.; Abuharfeil, N. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis among High Risk People in Northern Jordan. Int. J. Epidemiol.; 1996; 25, pp. 450-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/25.2.450] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9119573]
45. Roca-Monge, K.; González-Barrientos, R.; Suárez-Esquivel, M.; Palacios-Alfaro, J.D.; Castro-Ramírez, L.; Jiménez-Soto, M.; Cordero-Chavarría, M.; García-Párraga, D.; Barratclough, A.; Moreno, E. et al. Age and Sexual Maturity Estimation of Stranded Striped Dolphins, Stenella Coeruleoalba, Infected with Brucella ceti. Oceans; 2022; 3, pp. 494-508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/oceans3040033]
46. González-Barrientos, R.; Morales, J.-A.; Hernández-Mora, G.; Barquero-Calvo, E.; Guzmán-Verri, C.; Chaves-Olarte, E.; Moreno, E. Pathology of Striped Dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) Infected with Brucella ceti. J. Comp. Pathol.; 2010; 142, pp. 347-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2009.10.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19954790]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Cuvertoret-Sanz, María 2 ; Wilkinson, Sarah 2
; Allepuz, Alberto 1 ; Perlas, Albert 1 ; Ganges, Llilianne 3
; Pérez, Lola 4 ; Domingo, Mariano 1
1 Departament de Sanitat i Anatomia Animals, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
2 Servei de Diagnòstic de Patologia Veterinària, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
3 IRTA—Institut de Recerca en Sanitat Animal, Programa de Sanitat Animal, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
4 Facultat de Veterinària de Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;