Brucellosis is a globally significant zoonotic disease, caused by Brucella spp., with wildlife reservoirs such as wild boars posing a potential threat to brucellosis-free livestock populations and public health. Despite eradication of brucellosis in domestic animals in Germany, the disease persists in wildlife. Reliable and specific diagnostic tools are essential for effective surveillance. In this study, 149 serum samples from wild boars hunted during the 2023/2024 season in Bavaria (Germany) were analyzed using four serological tests: 1.the rose bengal test (RBT), 2. a conventional sLPS-based ELISA (BMS),3. a novel biwell ELISA (BSI) using both sLPS and rLPS antigens and 4. the complement fixation test (CFT) as gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of all assays were calculated in comparison to the CFT. Of the 149 samples analyzed, 9 tested positive by CFT, resulting in a seroprevalence of 6.0 % 3.1 %, 11.2 %in the sampled wild boar population. The BMS-ELISA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (100 %) but moderate specificity (85.0 %), whereas the BSI ELISA showed improved specificity (94.3 %) and accuracy (92.6 %) through combined detection of antibodies against sLPS and rLPS, albeit with lower sensitivity (66.7 %). The RBT performed least favorably with a sensitivity of 55.6 % and specificity of 92.7 %. The findings confirm that brucellosis remains endemic among wild boars in Bavaria. While the BSI ELISA shows promise due to its high specificity, its lower sensitivity limits its utility as a stand-alone diagnostic. Cross-reactions in sLPS-based assays highlight the importance of combining antigens for improved test reliability. The varying seroprevalence compared to previous studies underscores the dynamic nature of infection in wildlife populations. A dual-step diagnostic approach - utilizing a sensitive ELISA for screening followed by CFT for confirmation - remains the most effective strategy for wildlife surveillance. The BSI ELISA may serve as a viable alternative in clinical or resource-limited settings. Continued monitoring is crucial to mitigate the zoonotic risk posed by wildlife reservoirs.
Limpinsel et al. (Mon,) studied this question.