ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Can qPCR on pooled sheep milk detect brucellosis as part of herd brucellosis control and eradication programs?
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological characteristics, human cell interaction mechanisms, and differential clinical outcomes of infection by Brucella melitensis, Brucella abortus, Brucella suis, and Brucella canis.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Detection of Brucella spp. from milk by quantitative PCR as a monitoring method for brucellosis in cattle in Mongolia.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis is a zoonotic disease occurring worldwide. Brucella melitensis is the main cause of malta fever in humans and a major cause of abortion in sheep. In herd control and prevention programs, applying a suitable noninvasive method for accurate, rapid, and cost-effective monitoring of infected animals is a major concern. This study aimed to investigate lots of pooled sheep milk using qPCR to detect Brucella spp. infection in sheep. By calculating the limit of detection of Brucella in qPCR and microbial culture, the maximum number of pooled milk lots that retained the ability to be identified positively for Brucella was determined. A total of 144 milk samples were collected from the different seropositive sheep herds. The samples were randomly divided into six groups, each further divided into two subgroups, respectively. Then, DNA extraction was performed on 186 pooled and individual samples, followed by qPCR.
resultsThe minimum detectable limits for qPCR and microbial culture per ml of milk were 100 and 300 CFU, respectively. Only 40% of the samples in microbial culture tested positive when the concentration decreased to 200 CFU. The results of qPCR indicated that four pools of 24 tested positive, whereas two pools tested negative. After examining the subgroups and individual samples within the two negative groups, it was revealed that all qPCR tests for these samples were negative. In the positive pools, at least one of the samples in the subgroups and corresponding individual samples tested positive. The two positive pools of 24, contained only one individual positive sample in each, indicating that the qPCR test could detect a positive Brucella sample in a pool of 24.
conclusionsThis noninvasive (milk instead of blood), rapid, and cost-effective method can be used to monitor suspected herds to identify infected animals with fewer tests.
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.