Volume 83, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645



The diagnostic value of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was evaluated when blood specimens of 92 patients suspected of brucellosis underwent the ELISA (IgM and IgG), standard tube agglutination (SAT), and 2-mercaptoethanol (2-ME) tests and blood cultures; 38 sera from non-brucellosis patients and 34 sera from blood donors were also subjected to ELISA, SAT, and 2ME tests. SAT was able to pinpoint only 23 (25%), whereas ELISA confirmed the etiology in 56 (60.9%; < 0.001) patients with brucellosis, including 31 culture-confirmed cases. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 100% and 71.31%, respectively. Because they were confirmed by ELISA, the diagnosis could never be excluded with SAT in 33 cases. ELISA has been found to be more sensitive in acute (28% higher sensitivity; < 0.02) and chronic (55% higher sensitivity; < 0.01) cases. For accurate diagnosis in suspected brucellosis cases detection, we recommend both ELISA IgM and IgG tests. ELISA IgG and 2ME tests seem to be promising tools in judging prognosis.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Sohn AH, Probert WS, Glaser CA, Gupta N, Bollen AW, Wong JD, Grace EM, McDonald WC, , 2003. Human neurobrucellosis with intracerebral granuloma caused by a marine mammal Brucella spp. Emerg Infect Dis 9: 485488.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. McDonald WL, Jamaludin R, Mackereth G, Hansen M, Humphrey S, Short P, Taylor T, Swingler J, Dawson CE, Whatmore AM, Stabberfield E, Perrett LL, Simmons G, , 2006. Characterization of a Brucella spp. strain as a marine-mammal type despite isolation from a patient with spinal osteomyelitis in New Zealand. J Clin Microbiol 44: 43634370.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Wallach JC, Miguel SE, Baldi PC, Guarnera E, Goldbaum FA, Fossati CA, , 1994. Urban outbreak of a Brucella melitensis infection in an Argentine family: clinical and diagnostic aspects. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 8: 4956.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Young EJ, , 1983. Human brucellosis. Rev Infect Dis 5: 821842.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Maas KS, Mendez M, Zavaleta M, Manrique J, Franco MP, Mulder M, Bonifacio N, Castaneda ML, Chacaltana J, Yagui E, Gilman RH, Guillen A, Blazes DL, Espinosa B, Hall E, Abdoel TH, Smits HL, , 2007. Evaluation of brucellosis by PCR and persistence after treatment in patients returning to the hospital for follow-up. Am J Trop Med Hyg 76: 698702. [Google Scholar]
  6. Buchanan TM, Faber LC, , 1980. 2-mercaptoethanol Brucella agglutination test: usefulness for predicting recovery from brucellosis. J Clin Microbiol 11: 691693. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mantur BG, Biradar MS, Bidri RC, Mulimani MS, Veerappa Kariholu P, Patil SB, Mangalgi SS, , 2006. Protean clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenges of human brucellosis in adults: 16 years' experience in an endemic area. J Med Microbiol 55: 897903.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zourbas J, Masse L, Roussey A, David C, Maurin J, Torte J, , 1977. Sampling survey on brucellosis among farmers and their families in IIIe-et-Vilaine (Brittany). Int J Epidemiol 6: 335343.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gilbert GL, Beaton CP, Forsyth JR, Bell CO, , 1980. An epidemiological survey of human brucellosis in three Victorian abattoirs. Med J Aust 1: 482486. [Google Scholar]
  10. Daz R, Maravi-Poma E, Rivero A, , 1976. Comparison of counter-immuno-electrophoresis with other serological tests in the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Bull World Health Organ 53: 417424. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gad El-Rab MO, Kambal AM, , 1998. Evaluation of a Brucella enzyme immunoassay test (ELISA) in comparison with bacteriological culture and agglutination. J Infect 36: 197201.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Osoba AO, Balkhy H, Memish Z, Khan MY, Al-Thagafi A, Al Shareef B, Al Mowallad A, Oni GA, , 2001. Diagnostic value of Brucella ELISA IgG and IgM in bacteremic and non-bacteremic patients with brucellosis. J Chemother 13 (Suppl 1): 5459.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Buchanan TM, Sulzer CR, Frix MK, Feldman RA, , 1974. Brucellosis in the United States, 1960–1972: an abattoir-associated disease. Part II. Diagnostic aspects. Medicine (Baltimore) 53: 415425.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ariza J, Pellicer T, Pallares R, Foz A, Gudiol F, , 1992. Specific antibody profile in human brucellosis. Clin Infect Dis 14: 131140.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gazapo E, Gonzalez Lahoz J, Subiza JL, Baquero M, Gil J, de la Concha EG, , 1989. Changes in IgM and IgG antibody concentrations in brucellosis over time: importance for diagnosis and follow-up. J Infect Dis 159: 219225.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Reddin JL, Anderson RK, Jenness R, Spink WW, , 1965. Significance of 7S and macroglobulin Brucella agglutinins in human brucellosis. N Engl J Med 272: 12631268.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sippel JE, El-Masry NA, Farid Z, , 1982. Diagnosis of human brucellosis with ELISA. Lancet 2: 1921.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Magee JT, , 1980. An enzyme-labelled immunosorbent assay for Brucella abortus antibodies. J Med Microbiol 13: 167172.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Young EJ, , 1991. Serologic diagnosis of human brucellosis: analysis of 214 cases by agglutination tests and review of the literature. Rev Infect Dis 13: 359372.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 28 Dec 2009
  • Accepted : 06 May 2010
  • Published online : 05 Aug 2010

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error