Ndengu Masimba, Matope Gift, de Garine-Wichatitsky Michel, Tivapasi Musavengana, Scacchia Massimo, Bonfini Barbara, Pfukenyi Davis Mubika
Department of Clinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. BoxMP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe; Research Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership, P.O. Box 1378, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Research Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership, P.O. Box 1378, Harare, Zimbabwe; Department of Paraclinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Prev Vet Med. 2017 Oct 1;146:158-165. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Aug 8.
A study was conducted to investigate seroprevalence and risk factors for Brucella species infection in cattle and some wildlife species in communities living at the periphery of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area in south eastern Zimbabwe. Three study sites were selected based on the type of livestock-wildlife interface: porous livestock-wildlife interface (unrestricted); non-porous livestock-wildlife interface (restricted by fencing); and livestock-wildlife non-interface (totally absent or control). Sera were collected from cattle aged≥2years representing both female and intact male animals. Sera were also collected from selected wild ungulates from Mabalauta (porous interface) and Chipinda (non-interface) areas of the Gonarezhou National Park. Samples were screened for Brucellaantibodies using the Rose Bengal plate test and confirmed by the complement fixation test. Data were analysed by descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression modelling. In cattle, brucellosis seroprevalence from all areas was 16.7% (169/1011; 95% CI: 14.5-19.2%). The porous interface recorded a significantly (p=0.03) higher seroprevalence (19.5%; 95% CI: 16.1-23.4%) compared to the non-interface area (13.0%; 95% CI: 9.2-19.9%).The odds of Brucellaseropositivity increased progressively with parity of animals and were also three times higher (OR=3.0, 2.0<OR<4.6, p<0.0001) in cows with history of abortion compared to those without.Brucella antibodies were detected in buffaloes; 20.7% (95% CI: 13.9-29.7%) form both study sites, but no antibodies were detected from impalas and kudus. These results highlight the importance of porous interface in the interspecies transmission of Brucella species and that independent infections may be maintained in buffalo populations. Thus, brucellosis control aimed at limiting animal inter-species mixing may help reduce the risk of human brucellosis in interface areas. Further studies should aim at establishing subspecies identity and direction of possible transmission of brucellosis between wildlife and livestock.
在津巴布韦东南部大林波波跨界保护区周边社区,开展了一项研究,旨在调查牛及一些野生动物布鲁氏菌属感染的血清流行率和风险因素。根据家畜与野生动物的接触类型选择了三个研究地点:多孔家畜 - 野生动物接触界面(无限制);无孔家畜 - 野生动物接触界面(受围栏限制);以及家畜 - 野生动物无接触界面(完全不存在或为对照)。采集了年龄≥2岁的牛的血清,包括雌性和未阉割的雄性动物。还从戈纳雷州国家公园马巴拉乌塔(多孔界面)和奇平达(无接触界面)地区的选定野生有蹄类动物中采集了血清。使用玫瑰红平板试验对样本进行布鲁氏菌抗体筛查,并通过补体结合试验进行确认。通过描述性统计和多变量逻辑回归模型分析数据。在牛中,所有地区的布鲁氏菌病血清流行率为16.7%(169/1011;95%置信区间:14.5 - 19.2%)。与无接触界面地区(13.0%;95%置信区间:9.2 - 19.9%)相比,多孔接触界面的血清流行率显著更高(p = 0.03)(19.5%;95%置信区间:16.1 - 23.4%)。布鲁氏菌血清阳性的几率随着动物胎次的增加而逐渐增加,并且有流产史的母牛的血清阳性几率比没有流产史的母牛高出三倍(比值比 = 3.0,2.0 < 比值比 < 4.6,p < 0.0001)。在水牛中检测到了布鲁氏菌抗体;来自两个研究地点的水牛的抗体检测率为20.7%(95%置信区间:13.9 - 29.7%),但在黑斑羚和捻角羚中未检测到抗体。这些结果突出了多孔接触界面在布鲁氏菌属种间传播中的重要性,以及水牛种群中可能维持独立感染。因此,旨在限制动物种间混合的布鲁氏菌病控制措施可能有助于降低接触地区人类布鲁氏菌病的风险。进一步的研究应旨在确定亚种身份以及野生动物与家畜之间布鲁氏菌病可能的传播方向。