| Literature DB >> 33344532 |
Aman Ullah Khan1,2, Falk Melzer1, Ashraf Hendam3, Ashraf E Sayour4, Iahtasham Khan5, Mandy C Elschner1, Muhammad Younus6, Syed Ehtisham-Ul-Haque2, Usman Waheed2, Muhammad Farooq5, Shahzad Ali7, Heinrich Neubauer1, Hosny El-Adawy1,8.
Abstract
Bovine brucellosis is a global zoonosis of public health importance. It is an endemic disease in many developing countries including Pakistan. This study aimed to estimate the seroprevalence and molecular detection of bovine brucellosis and to assess the association of potential risk factors with test results. A total of 176 milk and 402 serum samples were collected from cattle and buffaloes in three districts of upper Punjab, Pakistan. Milk samples were investigated using milk ring test (MRT), while sera were tested by Rose-Bengal plate agglutination test (RBPT) and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (i-ELISA). Real-time PCR was used for detection of Brucella DNA in investigated samples. Anti-Brucella antibodies were detected in 37 (21.02%) bovine milk samples using MRT and in 66 (16.4%) and 71 (17.7%) bovine sera using RBPT and i-ELISA, respectively. Real-time PCR detected Brucella DNA in 31 (7.71%) from a total of 402 bovine sera and identified as Brucella abortus. Seroprevalence and molecular identification of bovine brucellosis varied in some regions in Pakistan. With the use of machine learning, the association of test results with risk factors including age, animal species/type, herd size, history of abortion, pregnancy status, lactation status, and geographical location was analyzed. Machine learning confirmed a real observation that lactation status was found to be the highest significant factor, while abortion, age, and pregnancy came second in terms of significance. To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first time to use machine learning to assess brucellosis in Pakistan; this is a model that can be applied for other developing countries in the future. The development of control strategies for bovine brucellosis through the implementation of uninterrupted surveillance and interactive extension programs in Pakistan is highly recommended.Entities:
Keywords: Brucella abortus; Brucellosis; bovines; machine learning; risk factors; seroprevalence
Year: 2020 PMID: 33344532 PMCID: PMC7738322 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.594498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Map of the study area showing districts Gujranwala, Gujrat, and Narowal of upper Punjab, Pakistan.
Primers and probes sequences used in real-time PCR assays for the detection of Brucella spp., Brucella abortus, and Brucella melitensis in bovine, Pakistan.
| Forward | ( | ||
| Forward | |||
| Forward | |||
Conversion of risk factor categories into numeric values for machine learning model.
| Location | Gujranwala | 1 |
| Gujrat | 2 | |
| Narowal | 3 | |
| Genus/species | Cattle ( | 1 |
| Buffalo ( | 2 | |
| Sex | Male | 1 |
| Female | 2 | |
| Age | 7–10 years | 1 |
| 3–7 years | 2 | |
| 2–3 years | 3 | |
| Herd size | 1–10 | 1 |
| 11–30 | 2 | |
| >30 | 3 | |
| Reproductive disease/problem | Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 | |
| History of abortion | Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 | |
| Pregnancy | Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 | |
| Lactation | Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
Figure 2Decision tree for the Rose–Bengal plate agglutination test (RBPT) performed on 208 cattle (Bos taurus) and 194 buffaloes (Bos bubalus) from Narowal, Gujranwala, and Gujrat districts, Pakistan. The decision tree of RBPT reveals that the root node is lactation attribute and in the second level come attributes age and abortion.
Figure 4Decision tree for the real-time PCR performed on 208 cattle (Bos taurus) and 194 buffaloes (Bos bubalus) from Narowal, Gujranwala, and Gujrat districts, Pakistan. The decision tree of real-time PCR reveals that the root node is lactation attribute and in the second level come attributes age and pregnancy.
Seroprevalence and molecular detection of Brucella DNA in bovine milk and sera collected from Narowal, Gujranwala, and Gujrat districts of upper Punjab, Pakistan.
| Narowal | 39 | 65 | 9 (23.1) | 16 (24.6) | 16 (24.6) | 4 (6.15) | 32, 35, 36, 32 | ||
| 42 | 69 | 8 (19.04) | 9 (13.04) | 12 (17.4) | 7 (10.1) | 36, 32, 30, 32, 31, 29, 30 | |||
| Gujranwala | Cattle | 30 | 70 | 5 (16.6) | 11 (15.7) | 13 (18.5) | 4 (5.71) | 35, 32, 32, 35, | |
| Buffalo | 9 | 64 | 4 (44.4) | 8 (12.5) | 8 (12.5) | 6 (6.37) | 30, 31, 31, 35, 29, 33 | ||
| Gujrat | Cattle | 38 | 73 | 5 (13.1) | 12 (16.4) | 12 (16.4) | 5 (6.84) | 32, 34, 37, 34, 30 | |
| Buffalo | 18 | 61 | 6 (33.3) | 10 (16.3) | 10 (16.3) | 5 (8.19) | 27, 36, 32, 32, 35 | ||
MRT, milk ring test; RBPT, Rose–Bengal plate agglutination test; i-ELISA, indirect ELISA; Cq/Ct values (cycle quantification/cycle threshold values): this is the number of PCR cycles at which the sample's amplification curve intersects in the beginning of its exponential phase with the threshold line. The threshold line is the level of detection or the point at which a reaction reaches a fluorescent intensity above background levels. Cq indicates how many cycles it took to detect a real signal from every sample. Each sample has a reaction curve, which is a plot of the number of cycles vs. fluorescence intensity.
Bos taurus.
Bos bubalus.
Italic values indicates Subtotal (%).
Figure 5Venn diagram of correlations of serological tests and real-time PCR expressed as numbers of positive cattle (Bos taurus) and buffaloes (Bos bubalus) from the three target districts. (A) Results of all the 402 sera tested by Rose–Bengal plate agglutination test (RBPT), i-ELISA, and real-time PCR. (B) Results for the 176 lactating animals where milk ring test (MRT) was additionally performed.
Statistical relationship of risk factors with detection of bovine brucellosis in Narowal, Gujranwala, and Gujrat districts of upper Punjab, Pakistan.
| Gujranwala ( | 19 (14.17) | 21 (15.67) | 10 (7.46) |
| Gujrat ( | 22 (16.41) | 22 (16.41) | 10 (7.46) |
| Narowal ( | 25 (18.65) | 28 (20.89) | 11 (8.21) |
| 0.9394 | 0.9276 | ||
| χ2 | 0.12495 | 0.15033 | |
| Df | 2 | ||
| 95% CI | – | – | |
| OR | – | – | |
| Cattle ( | 39 (18.75) | 41 (19.71) | 13 (6.25) |
| Buffaloes ( | 27 (13.91) | 30 (15.46) | 18 (9.27) |
| 0.1141 | 0.1412 | ||
| χ2 | 2.4961 | 2.1652 | |
| Df | 1 | ||
| 95% CI | 0.7728451–5.2286033 | 0.7410196–4.8877704 | |
| OR | 1.985477 | 1.880346 | |
| 7–10 years ( | 25 (25.51) | 27 (27.55) | 10 (10.2) |
| 3–7 years ( | 39 (16.52) | 41 (17.37) | 19 (8.05) |
| 2–3 years ( | 2 (2.94) | 3 (4.41) | 2 (2.94) |
| 0.6702 | 0.7936 | ||
| χ2 | 0.80047 | 0.4623 | |
| Df | 2 | ||
| 95% CI | – | – | |
| OR | – | – | |
| 1–10 ( | 18 (14.06) | 22 (17.18) | 10 (7.81) |
| 11–30 ( | 22 (15.94) | 22 (15.94) | 9 (6.52) |
| >30 ( | 26 (19.11) | 27 (19.85) | 12 (8.82) |
| 0.858 | 0.9798 | ||
| χ2 | 0.30622 | 0.040852 | |
| Df | 2 | ||
| 95% CI | - | - | |
| OR | - | - | |
| Yes ( | 66 (17.64) | 70 (18.71) | 31 (8.29) |
| No ( | 0 | 1 (3.57) | 0 |
| - | 0.5067 | ||
| χ2 | - | 0.44094 | |
| Df | 1 | ||
| 95% CI | 0–Inf | 0.00000–89.19948 | |
| OR | 0 | 0 | |
| Yes ( | 14 (35.89) | 16 (41.02) | 9 (23.07) |
| No ( | 52 (14.32) | 55 (15.15) | 22 (6.06) |
| 0.3984 | 0.4829 | ||
| χ2 | 0.71309 | 0.49229 | |
| Df | 1 | ||
| 95% CI | 0.2257425–2.0039428 | 0.2505977–2.1199847 | |
| OR | 0.6610627 | 0.7135534 | |
| Yes ( | 37 (20.90) | 39 (22.03) | 16 (9.04) |
| No ( | 29 (12.88) | 32 (14.22) | 15 (6.66) |
| 0.6816 | 0.7573 | ||
| χ2 | 0.16835 | 0.095536 | |
| Df | 1 | ||
| 95% CI | 0.464294–3.067330 | 0.4489188–2.8947825 | |
| OR | 1.1939 | 1.14108 | |
| Yes ( | 47 (26.70) | 51 (28.97) | 24 (13.63) |
| No ( | 19 (8.41) | 20 (8.85) | 7 (3.097) |
| 0.5198 | 0.5563 | ||
| χ2 | 0.41423 | 0.34623 | |
| Df | 1 | ||
| 95% CI | 0.2247314–2.1213957 | 0.2336189–2.1616710 | |
| OR | 0.723859 | 0.745854 | |
Statistical value of significance: p ≤ 0.05.
χ.
Performance evaluation metrics of machine learning model calculated from prediction scores for the serum tests RBPT, i-ELISA, and real-time PCR.
| Precision (PPV) | 44% | 50% | 43% |
| Recall (NPV) | 39% | 42% | 30% |
| Accuracy | 83% | 84% | 91% |
| ROC AUC | 65% | 67% | 63% |
RBPT, Rose–Bengal agglutination test; PPV, positive predicted value; NPV, negative predicted value; AUC ROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Machine learning steps involved supervised learning by decision tree algorithm, classification of animals as positive or negative based on the model of each diagnostic test, and evaluation of the established models by matching the predicted (classified) values as an output from each model and the real results of the diagnostic test.
Precision (random error) is the agreement among repeated analyses of a sample. It is also called positive predicted value. It means the odds that the test method has made a correct prediction when it predicts a positive value.
Recall (sensitivity or negative predicted value) is how often the test method is making a correct prediction when the actual value is positive.
Accuracy is nearness of a test value to the actual value. It is the number of correct predictions made as a ratio of all predictions made.
ROC AUC is the area under the receiver operating curve indicating the ability of a binary classifier to discriminate between positive and negative classes at various diagnostic thresholds. An ROC curve is a graph showing the performance of a test method at all classification thresholds by plotting the true positive rate (on y-axis) vs. the false positive rate (on x-axis).