ArticleVeterinary world2016
A comparison of titers of anti-Brucella antibodies of naturally infected and healthy vaccinated cattle by standard tube agglutination test, microtiter plate agglutination test, indirect hemagglutination assay, and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Article in Veterinary world, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a recombinant Omp19+31-based indirect hemagglutination assay for serological diagnosis of bovine and ovine brucellosis.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- Epidemiological study of the serology and geographic distribution of abortion causative agents in aceh cows in Indonesia.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Indirect hemagglutination assay for diagnosing brucellosis: Past, present, and future.Veterinary world · 2024Review
- Bovine brucellosis - a comprehensive review.The veterinary quarterly · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe determined the antibody response in cattle naturally infected with brucellosis and normal healthy adult cattle vaccinated during calf hood with strain 19. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe antibody titers were measured by standard tube agglutination test (STAT), microtiter plate agglutination test (MAT), indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA) as per standard protocols.
resultsThe mean STAT titers were 1.963±0.345 in infected cattle and 1.200±0.155 in healthy vaccinated cattle. The difference was extremely significant (p<0.0001). The mean MAT titers were 2.244±0.727 in infected cattle and 1.200±0.155 in healthy vaccinated cattle. The difference was very significant (p<0.005). The mean IHA titers in infected cattle were 2.284±0.574, and those in healthy vaccinated cattle were 1.200±0.155. The difference was extremely significant (p=0.0002). However, the difference in mean iELISA titers of infected cattle (1.3678±0.014) and healthy vaccinated cattle (1.367±0.014) was non-significant. The infected animals showed very high titers of agglutinating antibodies compared to the vaccinated animals. However, it cannot be ascertained whether these antibodies are due to vaccine or response to infection. Since the infected animals had been vaccinated earlier, the current infection may suggest that vaccination was unable to induce protective levels of antibody. The heightened antibody response after infection may also indicate a secondary immune response to the antigens common to the vaccine strain and wild Brucella organisms.
conclusionThe brucellosis infected animals showed very high titers of agglutinating antibodies compared to the vaccinated animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.