{rfName}
A

Indexed in

License and use

Icono OpenAccess

Citations

31

Altmetrics

Grant support

Not applicable.

Analysis of institutional authors

Blasco, J MAuthorMunoz, P MAuthor

Share

June 15, 2024
Publications
>
Review
Sí

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

Publicated to:Bmc Veterinary Research. 19 (1): 211- - 2023-10-18 19(1), DOI: 10.1186/s12917-023-03773-3

Authors: Blasco, J M; Moreno, E; Munoz, P M; Conde-alvarez, R; Moriyon, I

Affiliations

Ctr Invest & Tecnol Agroalimentaria Aragon CITA, Dept Ciencia Anim, Zaragoza, Spain - Author
Univ Nacl, Escuela Med Vet, Programa Invest Enfermedades Trop, Heredia, Costa Rica - Author
Univ Navarra, Dept Microbiol & Parasitol, Pamplona, Spain - Author
Univ Navarra, Inst Invest Sanitaria Navarra, Pamplona, Spain - Author
Univ Zaragoza, CITA, Inst Agroalimentario Aragon IA2, Zaragoza, Spain - Author
See more

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Abortion, veterinaryAdult cattleAnimalsAntibodies, bacterialB. abortusB. melitensisBovine brucellosisBrucella abortusBrucella vaccineBrucellosisCattleCattle diseasesControlDairy-cattleDivDivaEradicationExperimental-infectionFemaleHumansImmune-responsesLipopolysaccharidesMelitensis infectionO-polysaccharidePregnancyProtectioRb51Serologial diagnosisStrain rb51Suis biovar 1VaccinationVaccine

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Bmc Veterinary Research due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2023, it was in position 28/167, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Veterinary Sciences.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 4.15. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Weighted Average of Normalized Impact by the Scopus agency: 1.96 (source consulted: FECYT Feb 2024)
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 14.96 (source consulted: Dimensions Aug 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-08-05, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 10
  • Scopus: 10
  • Europe PMC: 8

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-08-05:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 55.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 69 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 1.85.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 3 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.
  • Assignment of a Handle/URN as an identifier within the deposit in the Institutional Repository: http://hdl.handle.net/10532/6655

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: Costa Rica.

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (Blasco Martínez, José María) .