ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Detection of Brucella spp. from milk by quantitative PCR as a monitoring method for brucellosis in cattle in Mongolia.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel duplex TaqMan qPCR assay for rapid differential diagnosis and co-infection screening of Orf virus and Brucella spp. in goats.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- An Immunomagnetic Bead-Based Sandwich ELISA for the Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Advances in rapid detection technologies for zoonotic diseases: a one health-oriented review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis in livestock is endemic in Mongolia, and efficient monitoring is required for clarifying its prevalence. Milk can be obtained noninvasively and is useful for monitoring brucellosis in livestock. However, the usefulness of milk in monitoring brucellosis should be clarified. MATERIALS AND
methodsSerum and milk samples were obtained from 326 cows from six farms near Ulaanbaatar City between 2020 and 2022. Serum and milk were assessed using the Rose Bengal Test (RBT) and Milk Ring Test (MRT), respectively. All milk samples were further subjected to bacterial isolation and DNA extraction. DNA samples were analyzed with quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting Brucella genus-specific IS711 insertion sequence to detect and estimate Brucella spp. levels in milk. qPCR-positive samples were further subjected to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assay to discriminate B. abortus field strains from the S19 vaccine strain.
resultsOf the 326 milk samples, 108 (33.1%) were revealed to be positive for Brucella spp. by qPCR, whereas only 5 samples (1.5%) were deemed positive via the bacterial isolation. No S19 vaccine strain was identified in the IS711 qPCR-positive milk samples by the SNP assay. Although qPCR detected Brucella spp. from milk, which was obtained from cows in three lactation stages, the detection ratio was significantly higher in the early lactation stage than in the middle lactation stage. Additionally, the five milk samples from which Brucella spp, were isolated exhibited the top 5 estimated colony forming units among the IS711 qPCR-positive samples, indicating that detection sensitivity of the IS711 qPCR is extremely higher than that of bacterial culture. There was a tendency that milk samples from RBT- and MRT-positive cows are more likely to be positive by IS711 qPCR.
conclusionThe results revealed that analysis of milk with qPCR is easy and sensitive monitoring method for detecting Brucella infection in livestock.
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.