| Literature DB >> 24358261 |
Abdou Razac Boukary1, Claude Saegerman2, Emmanuel Abatih3, David Fretin4, Rianatou Alambédji Bada5, Reginald De Deken3, Halimatou Adamou Harouna6, Alhassane Yenikoye7, Eric Thys3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Niamey, Niger, interactions within the interface between animals, humans and the environment induce a potential risk of brucellosis transmission between animals and from animals to humans. Currently, little is known about the transmission of Brucella in this context.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24358261 PMCID: PMC3865157 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Location of the study areas in Niger.
Total number of herds surveyed and animals tested in the urban (Ur), peri-urban (Pu) and rural areas (Ru) of Niger.
| Variable | Ur | Pu | Ru | Total |
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 131 | 225 | 375 |
|
| 9 | 13 | 23 | 45 |
|
| 239 | 215 | 227 | 681 |
|
| ||||
|
| 973 | 1,473 | 724 | 3,170 |
|
| 216 | 320 | 650 | 1,186 |
|
| 106 | 150 | 583 | 839 |
| Total number of animals tested | 1,295 | 1,943 | 1957 | 5,195 |
Loci of the Variable Number Tandem Repeats analysis (VNTR) used in the study (according to [31]).
| Panel | Reference VNTR | Name of marker |
| 1 | BRU1322_134bp_408bp_3u | Bruce06 |
| BRU1134_18bp_348bp_4u | Bruce08 | |
| BRU211_63bp_257bp_3u | Bruce11 | |
| BRU73_15bp_392bp_13u | Bruce12 | |
| BRU424_125bp_539bp_4u | Bruce42 | |
| BRU379_12bp_182bp_2u | Bruce43 | |
| BRU233_18bp_151bp_3u | Bruce45 | |
| BRU2066_40bp_273bp_3u | Bruce55 | |
| 2 | BRU1543_8bp_152bp_2u | Bruce04 |
| BRU1250_8bp_158bp_5u | Bruce07 | |
| BRU588_8bp_156bp_7u | Bruce09 | |
| BRU548_8bp_152bp_3u | Bruce16 | |
| BRU339_8bp_146bp_5u | Bruce18 | |
| BRU329_8bp_148bp_6u | Bruce21 | |
| BRU1505_8bp_151bp_6u | Bruce30 |
Legend;
reference VNTR: naming nomenclature includes repeat unit size, PCR product size in strain 16 M, corresponding repeat copy number,
common name of the marker.
Apparent prevalence (AP) and estimated true prevalence (TP) of brucellosis at the individual animal and herd levels.
| Urban | Periurban | Rural | |||||||||||||||||
| Species | Gender | N | Positive | Apparent Prevalence (%) | True estimated Prevalence | N | Positives | Apparent Prevalence (%) | True estimated Prevalence | N | Positive | Apparent Prevalence (%) | True estimated Prevalence | ||||||
| AP | 95% CI | TP | 95% CI | AP | 95% CI | TP | 95% CI | AP | 95% CI | TP | 95% CI | ||||||||
|
| Female | 908 | 26 | 2.0 | 1.1–2.9 | 0.6 | 0.1–3.4 | 1337 | 32 | 1.8 | 1.1–2.6 | 0.5 | 0.1–2.9 | 649 | 36 | 4.4 | 2.8–5.9 | 3.1 | 1.8–7.3 |
| Male | 65 | 1 | 1.0 | 0.0–3.3 | 0 | - | 136 | 3 | 1.5 | 0–3.6 | 0.1 | 0–4.1 | 75 | 5 | 5.3 | 0.2–10.4 | 4.1 | 0.0–14.9 | |
| Total | 973 | 27 | 2.0 | 1.1–2.9 | 0.6 | 0.1–3.4 | 1473 | 35 | 1.8 | 1.2–2.5 | 0.5 | 0.1–2.9 | 724 | 41 | 4.6 | 3.1–6.2 | 3.4 | 2.1–7.5 | |
|
| Female | 206 | 10 | 4.1 | 1.4–6.8 | 2.8 | 0.6–9.0 | 274 | 3 | 0.8 | 0.0–1.9 | - | - | 575 | 17 | 2.5 | 1.2–3.7 | 1.1 | 0.3–4.6 |
| Male | 10 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 46 | 0 | - | - | 75 | 0 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Total | 216 | 10 | 3.6 | 1.1–6.1 | 2.3 | 0.3–8.1 | 320 | 3 | 0.6 | 0.0–1.5 | - | - | 650 | 17 | 2.1 | 1.0–3.2 | 0.8 | 0.1–3.9 | |
|
| Female | 95 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.0–2.7 | - | - | 133 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 535 | 3 | 0.4 | 0.0–1.7 | - | - |
| Male | 11 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 17 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 48 | 0 | - | - | - | - | |
| Total | 106 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.0–2.2 | - | - | 150 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 583 | 3 | 0.4 | 0.0–0.9 | - | - | |
|
| Total | 227 | 42 | 13.5 | 9.1–18.0 | 12.8 | 8.4–22.3 | 215 | 27 | 12.0 | 7.7–16.4 | 11.2 | 7.0–20.6 | 239 | 33 | 17.8 | 12.9–22.6 | 17.2 | 12.5–27.4 |
Legend: * According to the formula proposed by Rogan and Gladen [30].
Potential risk/indicator factors associated with individual animal-level brucellosis seropositivity among 5195 animals nested within 681 herds.
| Variable | Number tested (Positive) | % Positive (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
| 1473 (35) | 2.4(1.7–3.3) | 1 (Ref.) | |
|
| 973 (27) | 2.8(1.8–4.0) | 1.3 (0.54–2.67) | |
|
| 724 (41) | 5.7(4.1–7.6) | 2.8 (1.37–5.60) | |
|
|
| |||
| ≤ | 912 (16) | 1.8 (1.0–2.8) | 1 (Ref.) | |
|
| 1307 (61) | 4.7(3.6–6.0) | 3.7 (1.87–7.17) | |
|
| 951 (26) | 2.7(1.8–4.0) | 1.7 (0.83–3.68) | |
|
| 0.944 | |||
| Bull | 276 (9) | 3.3 (1.5–6.1) | 1 (Ref.) | |
| Cow | 2894 (94) | 3.2 (2.6,4.0) | 1.1 (1.53–2.36) | |
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
| 470 (3) | 0.6 (0.1–1.9) | 1 (Ref.) | |
|
| 322 (11) | 3.4 (1.7–6.0) | 5.4 (1.41–20.88) | |
|
| 1233 (20) | 1.6 (1.0–2.5) | 2.4 (0.68–8.56) | |
|
|
| |||
| ≤ | 318 (4) | 1.3 (0.3–3.2) | 1 (Ref.) | |
|
| 723 (12) | 1.7 (0.9–2.9) | 1.3 (0.55–3.14) | |
|
| 984 (18) | 1.8 (1.1–2.9) | 2.1 (0.79–5.69) | |
|
|
| |||
| Male | 207 (0) | 0.0 (0–1.8) | 1 (Ref.) | |
| Female | 1818 (34) | 1.9 (1.3–2.6) | 8.0 (0.94–131.35)exact | |
Exact: estimates based on Firth's logistic regression model; Ref: reference group.
Potential risk factors associated with herd level seroprevalence of brucellosis based on a univariate random effects model with strata forced in as a fixed effect and site as a random effect.
| Variable code | Level | Odds ratio (95% C.I) | P-value |
| Herd Composition | Animal species that occur within the herd belonging to the herd surveyed | <0.001 | |
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 4.8(1.20–19.46) | ||
|
| 3.3(0.92–12.00) | ||
|
| 8.9(2.58–30.90) | ||
| Herd size | Number of animals owned by the herd | <0.001 | |
| 1:< = 10 | 1(Ref.) | ||
| 2:>10 and < = 50 | 3.3(1.27–8.40) | ||
| 3:>50 | 27.9(9.9–78.7) | ||
| Abortion | Presence of females who aborted among the animals belonging to the herd surveyed | <0.001 | |
|
| 1 (Ref.) | ||
|
| 4.5(2.23–8.95) | ||
| Acquiring animals | Acquisition modes of the animals by the herd | 0.025 | |
|
| 1 (Ref.) | ||
|
| 1.2(0.34–4.69) | ||
|
| 1.7(0.80–3.72) | ||
|
| 2.7(1.32–5.65) | ||
| Transhumance | Method of rearing animals of sedentary type | <0.001 | |
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 9.1(5.06–16.30) | ||
| Handling | Handling of newly arrival animals | 0.022 | |
|
| 1 (Ref.) | ||
|
| 1.8(1.08–2.85) | ||
| Native | Origin of the herd surveyed : native of the locality | <0.001 | |
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 4.3(2.15–8.64) |
Sero-prevalence: Having or not at least one animal testing positive by Elisa-test within the herd (1 or 0). Strata: Stratum in which the investigations took place (Urban, Periurban, Rural). Site: Means the village, hamlet or the district selected for the study within the different strata. Herd: Herd surveyed within the different sites. Ref.: reference group.
Final model of animal population level risk factors associated with brucellosis seropositivity among cattle and small ruminants.
| Variable code | Level | Odds ratio (95% C.I) | P-value |
|
| |||
| Strata |
| 1(Ref.) | |
|
| 1.4(0.73–2.62) | 0.323 | |
|
| 2.8(1.48–5.17) | 0.003 | |
| Age (years) | |||
| ≤ | 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 2.7(1.43–5.28) | 0.002 | |
|
| 1.2(0.59–2.60) | 0.527 | |
|
|
| ||
| Herd level variance | 1.20 | 0.45(0.57–2.50) | |
|
| |||
| Strata |
| 1 (Ref.) | |
|
| 5.5(1.48–20.38) | 0.011 | |
|
| (0.70–8.50) | 0.161 | |
|
|
| ||
| Herd level variance | 0.26 | 0.42(0.01–6.13) |
Legend: Ref.: reference group.
Final model of herd-level risk factors associated with brucellosis sero-positivity among 681 herds which nested within 45 sites.
| Variable code | Level | Odds ratio (95% C.I) | P-value |
| Strata | Stratum in which the investigations took place | ||
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 1.5(0.37–6.25) | 0.334 | |
|
| 1.8(0.55–5.70) | 0.557 | |
| Herd size | Number of animals in the herd | ||
| < = 10 | 1 (Ref.) | ||
| >10 and < = 50 | 1.9(0.71,5.15) | 0.199 | |
| >50 | 11.0(3.75,32.46) | <0.001 | |
| Abortion | Presence of females who aborted among the animals belonging to the herd surveyed | ||
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 3.0(1.40–6.41) | 0.005 | |
| Transhumance | Method of rearing animals of sedentary type | ||
|
| 1(Ref.) | ||
|
| 5.4(2.84–10.41) | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |
| Site level variance | 1.69 | 0.68 | (0.77–3.72) |
Legend: Ref.: reference group.
The Multiple Loci Variable Number Tandem Repeats analysis (MLVA) profiles showing number of variable tandem repeats (VTR) for a B. abortus biovar 3 isolate from Niger (Queried Strain) and its closest MLVA neighbour profile.
| Strain | REF Tulya | BCCN 93–26 | 11-KEBa2 | 14-KEBa2 | 15-KEBa2 | REF Tulya | Queried Strain | |
| Host | human | dromedary | cattle | cattle | cattle | cattle | cattle | |
| Publication | Le Flèche 2006 | Le Flèche 2006 | Muendo 2011 | Muendo 2011 | Muendo 2011 | Ferreira 2012 | This study | |
| Country | Uganda | Sudan | Kenya | Kenya | Kenya | - | Niger | |
|
| bruce06 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| bruce08 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
|
| bruce11 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| bruce12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | |
| bruce42 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| bruce43 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| bruce45 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| bruce55 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
|
| bruce18 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
| bruce19 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 42 | 21 | |
|
| bruce21 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| bruce04 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| bruce07 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | |
| bruce09 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| bruce16 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | |
| bruce30 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
Figure 2Clustering analysis of a field strain of Brucella abortus 3 from Niger (Queried_Strain) with field and reference strains in the Brucella multiple loci variable number tandem repeats analysis (MLVA) database (MVLABANK, 2012) using panels 1 and 2.
The data are given in columns from left to right: year of isolation and ‘alias’.