Table 1 Commonly used methods for Brucella detection

Culture^a

Lysis centrifugation^a

Sen: NA

Spe: 70.00–90.00% [19]

Pros: species-level identification and genotyping, antibiotic resistance detection;

Cons: slow growth, laboratory safety issues, etc. [20]

Bone marrow culture

Sen: NA

Spe: 50.00–97.00% [19]

Ruiz-Castañeda method

Sen: NA

Spe: 30.00–80.00% [19]

Serology

RBT

Sen: 92.00–98.90%

Spe: > 99.00% [21]

Pros: diagnosis is based on the test results of two or more methods; simple and time-saving, large-scale testing [22];

Cons: species-specific identification is not rapid enough and requires immunological identification of infected animals [23]

MRT

Sen: 80.00–86.60%

Spe: 100.00% [24]

ELISA

Sen: 96.60–100.00%

Spe: 100.00% [21]

FPA

Sen: 97.90%

Spe: 96.10% [20]

CFT

Sen: NA

Spe: NA

SAT

Sen: 80.40%–99.50%

Spe: 97.90%–99.00% [25]

Conventional PCR^a

16S rRNA^a

Sen: 72.10%

Spe: 100.00% [26]

Pros: fast, sensitive, accurate, and has a high safety factor;

Cons: some factors inhibit DNA amplification, showing low sensitivity and thus false negative [27]

Bscp31^a

Sen: 92.72–98.30%

Spe: 100.00% [28]

IS711^a

Sen: 100.00%

Spe: 100.00% [28]

Omp22^a

Sen: NA

Spe: NA

Omp2

Sen: 61.81%

Spe: 100.00% [29]

Multiplex-PCR

Omp31, Omp25b, WboA, RpsL, Bp26, etc

Sen: 85.38–94.11%

Spe: 98.06–98.76% [30]

Pros: time-saving and labor-saving, suitable for large-scale detection and identification of Brucella species [31];

Cons: possible non-specific expansion, false positives

Real-time PCR

Omp31

Sen: 98.00%

Spe: 100.00% [32]

Pros: high specificity, no need for gel electrophoresis, and can avoid contamination

Cons: prone to form aerosol, non-specific expansion, false positives [33]

Bscp31

Sen: 91.90%

Spe: 95.40% [34]

Acetyl-CoA

Sen: NA

Spe: 100.00% [35]

Western blotting

Omp28

Sen: 93.00–97.00%

Spe: 98.00–99.00% [36]

Pros: facilitate the distinction between brucellosis and other infections caused by cross-reactive bacteria [37];

Cons: antibody production may be more affected by individual strains than bacterial species, so immunodominant protein expression may vary between in vitro and in vivo culture conditions [38]

mNGS^a

NA

Sen: 100.00%

Spe: 90.00%

Pros: detection of rare, novel, and co-infected pathogens and also with advantages in resistance detection [39];

Cons: high cost, complex testing and interpretation, and slow turnaround time [40]

LAMP

Omp25

Sen: 100.00%

Spe: 97.80% [32]

Pros: the reaction time is short, and the results are visualized for rapid detection [41]

Cons: difficult primer design; prone to non-specific amplification or false positive [42]

RPA

Bscp31

Sen: NA

Spe: 94.00% [43]

Pros: simple operation, fast response, low requirements on equipment [44]

Cons: complicated and expensive and false positives

Bp26

Sen: 97.00%

Spe: 94.90% [2]

Omp31

Sen: NA

Spe: NA [45]