ArticleOne health outlook2021
Circulating Brucella species in wild animals of the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania.
Article in One health outlook, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Host and Pathogen Genetic Determinants of Brucellosis in Veterinary-One Health Interface: A Review.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Seroprevalence, associated risk factors, and molecular detection of Brucella spp. in cattle, sheep, goats and humans in Mvomero district, Morogoro, Tanzania.One health outlook · 2026Article
- From tests to truth: A misclassification-aware machine learning framework for estimating brucellosis seroprevalence in wild canids.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Global distribution and multidimensional risk assessment of brucellosis in humans, livestock, and wildlife.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Epidemiological baseline of Brucella spp. in South African wildlife.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Review of a decade of fauna research in Côte d'Ivoire with insights into wildlife health and zoonotic transmissions.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Antimicrobial resistant Brucella spp. prevail in raw milk and animal feces of different livestock farms.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Borrelia persica infection in wild carnivores in Israel: molecular characterization and new potential reservoirs.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Bovine Brucellosis at the Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interface in Rwanda.Microorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis is a bacterial zoonosis of public health and economic importance worldwide. It affects a number of domestic animals, wild animals and humans. Human brucellosis originates from either livestock or wildlife. The species of Brucella circulating in wild animals in Tanzania is largely unknown due to insufficient surveillance. This study was carried out to identify Brucella species found in selected wildlife hosts in the Serengeti ecosystem. METHODOLOGY: The study used a total of 189 archived samples that were obtained from cross-sectional studies previously conducted between 2000 and 2017 in the Serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania. Whole blood, serum and amniotic fluid collected from buffalos, lions, wildebeest, impala, zebra and hyena were available for DNA extraction. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction for B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. ovis and B. suis (AMOS PCR) and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) targeting the bcsp31 and IS711 genes for Brucella genus detection and the IS711 targets alkB for B. abortus and BMEI1162 for B. melitensis were used to detect Brucella strains.
resultsOut of the 189 samples tested, 12 (6.35 %) and 22 (11.6 %) were positive to AMOS-PCR and qPCR, respectively. Most of the positive samples were from lions (52.6 %) and buffaloes (19.6 %). Other animals that were positive included: wildebeest (13.6 %), impala (13.6 %), zebra (4.5 %) and hyena (4.5 %). Out of 22 positive samples, 16 (66.7 %) were identified as B. abortus and the other six samples did not amplify for neither B. abortus nor B. melitensis.
conclusionsThe detection of Brucella DNA in archived wild animal samples shows testing potential of samples collected from this population. The zoonotic species B. abortus and B. melitensis detected in wild animals have previously been reported in livestock and humans in the region. The findings suggest that, due to the contact network, some of the identified wild animal hosts in this study could be reservoirs for infections in domestic animals and humans within the Serengeti ecosystem while others are likely dead-end hosts. One Health control strategies and continuous surveillance programs in other wildlife reserved areas should be implemented to help predicting transmission in livestock and humans in the region.
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.