A review of three decades of use of the cattle brucellosis rough vaccine Brucella abortus RB51: myths and facts.

Cattle brucellosis is a severe zoonosis of worldwide distribution caused by Brucella abortus and B. melitensis. In some countries with appropriate infrastructure, animal tagging and movement control, eradication was possible through efficient diagnosis and vaccination with B. abortus S19, usually combined with test-and-slaughter (T/S). Although S19 elicits anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies that may interfere in the differentiation of infected and vaccinated animals (DIVA), this issue is minimized using appropriate S19 vaccination protocols and irrelevant when high-prevalence makes mass vaccination necessary or when eradication requisites are not met. However, S19 has been broadly replaced by vaccine RB51 (a rifampin-resistant rough mutant) as it is widely accepted that is DIVA, safe and as protective as S19. These RB51 properties are critically reviewed here using the evidence accumulated in the last 35 years. Controlled experiments and field evidence shows that RB51 interferes in immunosorbent assays (iELISA, cELISA and others) and in complement fixation, issues accentuated by revaccinating animals previously immunized with RB51 or S19. Moreover, contacts with virulent brucellae elicit anti-smooth lipopolysaccharide antibodies in RB51 vaccinated animals. Thus, accepting that RB51 is truly DIVA results in extended diagnostic confusions and, when combined with T/S, unnecessary over-culling. Studies supporting the safety of RB51 are flawed and, on the contrary, there is solid evidence that RB51 is excreted in milk and abortifacient in pregnant animals, thus being released in abortions and vaginal fluids. These problems are accentuated by the RB51 virulence in humans, lack diagnostic serological tests detecting these infections and RB51 rifampicin resistance. In controlled experiments, protection by RB51 compares unfavorably with S19 and lasts less than four years with no evidence that RB51-revaccination bolsters immunity, and field studies reporting its usefulness are flawed. There is no evidence that RB51 protects cattle against B. melitensis, infection common when raised together with small ruminants. Finally, data acumulated during cattle brucellosis eradication in Spain shows that S19-T/S is far more efficacious than RB51-T/S, which does not differ from T/S alone. We conclude that the assumption that RB51 is DIVA, safe, and efficaceous results from the uncritical repetition of imperfectly examined evidence, and advise against its use.