Diagnostic performance of serological tests for swine brucellosis in the presence of false positive serological reactions

• False positive serological reactions pose problems in swine brucellosis surveillance.
• Cytosoluble O/PS free protein extracts (CP) were used for differential serodiagnosis.
• Diagnostic performance of Brucella CP, R-LPS and S-LPS based tests was assessed.
• I-ELISA using either CP or R-LPS antigens resulted in poor diagnostic performance.
• Gel immunodifussion with CP and S-LPS can be used at herd level to solve FPSR problem.

Swine brucellosis caused by Brucella suis biovar 2 is an emerging disease in Europe. Currently used diagnostic tests for swine brucellosis detect antibodies to the O-polysaccharide (O-PS) of Brucella smooth lipopolysaccharide (S-LPS) but their specificity is compromised by false-positive serological reactions (FPSRs) when bacteria carrying cross-reacting O-PS infect pigs. FPSRs occur throughout Europe, and the only tool available for a specific B. suis diagnosis is the intradermal test with Brucella protein extracts free of O-PS or S-LPS. Using sera of 162 sows naturally infected by B. suis biovar 2, 406 brucellosis-free sows, and 218 pigs of brucellosis-free farms affected by FPSR, we assessed the diagnostic performance of an indirect ELISA with rough LPS (thus devoid of O-PS) and of gel immunodiffusion, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, latex agglutination and indirect ELISA with O-PS free proteins in comparison with several S-LPS tests (Rose Bengal, complement fixation, gel immunodiffusion and indirect ELISA). When adjusted to 100% specificity, the sensitivity of the rough LPS ELISA was very low (30%), and adoption of other cut-offs resulted in poor specificity/sensitivity ratios. Although their specificity was 100%, the sensitivity of protein tests (ELISA, latex agglutination, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, and gel immunodiffusion) was only moderate (45, 58, 61 and 63%, respectively). Among S-LPS tests, gel immunodiffusion was the only test showing acceptable sensitivity/specificity (68 and 100%, respectively). Despite these shortcomings, and when the purpose is to screen out FPSR at herd level, gel immunodiffusion tests may offer a technically simple and practical alternative to intradermal testing.