Comparative evaluation of Serum Plate Agglutination Test (SPAT) and Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT) for diagnosis of Brucella abortus in sera of cattle and human

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/05/2017
Views (236) Download (178)

Comparative evaluation of Serum Plate Agglutination Test (SPAT) and Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT) for diagnosis of Brucella abortus in sera of cattle and human

Fida Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Subhan Qureshi, Shah Nawaz, Muhammad Aftab, Umar Sadique, Ziaul Islam, Zia Ur Rahman Khalil
Int. J. Biosci.10( 5), 367-371, May 2017.
Certificate: IJB 2017 [Generate Certificate]


To diagnose bovine brucellosis, various conventional and advance molecular techniques are in practice. No single serological test is appropriate in all epidemiological circumstances; each of them has a number of restrictions predominantly for screening individual animals and human. The performance characteristics of Serum Plate Agglutination Test (SPAT) and Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT) for diagnosis of Brucella abortus were evaluated by using Indirect Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay (i-ELISA) as a Gold Standard. A total of 410 human and 202 cattle blood sera were screened. In human sera, RBPT detected 75 positive samples, while SPAT detected 78 positive samples. In cattle sera, RBPT detected 29 positive samples, while SPAT detected 32 positive samples. In cattle sera, RBPT showed high sensitivity 82.60%, specificity 94.72%, positive predictive value 76% and negative predictive value 96.41% as compared to SPAT which showed 81.15% sensitivity, 93.54% specificity, 71.79% positive predictive value and 96.08% negative predictive value. Similarly, in human sera RBPT showed high sensitivity 76%, specificity 94.35%, positive predictive value 65.51% and negative predictive value 96.53%, while SPAT showed 72% sensitivity, 92.09% specificity, 56.25% positive predictive value and 95.88%negative predictive. In the present study, although RBPT showed comparatively better result than SPAT but still its sensitivity and specificity is low, so it can be used as a screening test but cannot be used as a confirmatory test.


Agasthya AS, Isloor S, Prabhudas K. 2007. Brucellosis in high risk group individuals. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 25, 28- 31.

Chachra D, Hari SM, Gurpreet K, Mudit C. 2009. Comparative efficacy of Rose Bengal plate test, standard tube agglutination test and Dot ELISA in immunological detection of antibodies to Brucella abortus in sera. Journal of Bacteriology Research 1, 030-033.

Elsheikh HM, Hassan SO, Mohammad-Ahmad SA, Khojali MI. 2012. Investigations on seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in Northeastern, Sudan. Veterinary Research 5, 13-15.

Glynn MK, Lynn TV. 2008. Zoonosis update. American Veterinary Medical Association 233, 900- 908.

Hussain I, Muhammad AI, Muhammad MS, Masood AA. 2008. Seroprevalence of brucellois in human, cattle, and buffalo Populations in Pakistan. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 3, 315-318.

Nielsen K. 2002. Diagnosis of brucellosis by serology. Veterinary Microbiology 90,447- 459.

OIE terrestrial manual. 2009. Version adopted by the World Assembly of Delegates of the OIE.

Smith RD. 1995. Veterinary clinical epidemiology: A problem-oriented approach 2nd edition.

Stemshorn BW, Forbes LB, Eaglesome MD, Nielsen KH, Robertson FJ, Samagh BS. 1985. A comparison of standard serological test for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Canada. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 49, 391-394.

Weidmann H. 1991. Survey of means now available for combating brucellosis in cattle in tropics. Institute for Scientific Cooperation, Tubmgen, Georg Hauser, Metzingen, Germany 33, 98-111.

Wright P, Nielsen K, Kelly W. 1990. Primary binding techniques for the serodiagnosis of bovine brucellosis: enzyme immunoassay. In: Adams, LG, editor. Advances in brucellosis research. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 305–320.