Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV Recibido:22/04/2025 Aceptado:24/07/2025 Publicado: 03/09/2025 hps://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e35650 UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico 1 of 8 Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV hps://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e35681 UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico Seroprevalence survey of bovine Brucellosis in Eastern Algeria: spaal distribuon and risk factor analysis. Technical note Seroprevalencia de brucelosis bovina en el este de Argelia: distribución espacial y análisis de factores de riesgo. Nota técnica ¹Chadli Bendjedid University, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Laboratory of Epidemiological surveillance, health, producon and reproducon, experimentaon and cell therapy of domesc and wild animals, PO Box 73,36000 El-Tarf, Algeria. ²University of Batna 1, Veterinary Sciences and Agricultural Sciences Instute, Department of Veterinary Science, 05000, Algeria. ³University of Batna 2, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences,Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry, 05078, Algeria. ⁴Mohamed-Cherif Messaadia University - Souk Ahras, Biotechnologies and Health, Instute of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Sciences, Laboratory of Animal Producon, BP 41000, Souk-Ahras, Algeria *Corresponding author E-mail: laib-samir@univ-eltarf.dz ABSTRACT This cross-seconal study assessed the prevalence of bovine brucellosis and its associated risk factors in the Séf region of Algeria, which spans diverse agro-climac zones. Between March and December 2023, blood samples were collected from 391 dairy cows across 32 farms and analyzed using the ID Screen® Brucellosis Serum Indirect Mul-species immunoassay (featuring protein G-HRP conjugate) manufactured by IDVet Innovave Diagnoscs (Grabels, France). The study revealed an individual seroprevalence of 30.18% and a herd prevalence of 84.37%, with signiﬁcant variaon across bioclimac zones. The highest prevalence was observed in the southern zone (41.2%), followed by the highland (30.9%) and northern zones (23.7%). Logisc regression analysis idenﬁed external animal introducon (P = 0.0001; OR = 20.3; 95% CI: [5.33- 77.19]), inferlity (P = 0.0001; OR = 8.6; 95% CI: [3.71- 19.89]), and aboron history (P = 0.0001; OR = 8.9; 95% CI: [3.78-20.49]) as primary risk factors. Geographic locaon was found to signiﬁcantly inﬂuence disease risk, with animals in the northern bioclimac zone exhibing a markedly higher likelihood of infecon (P = 0.017; OR = 3.0; 95% CI: [1.22-7.54]) compared to those in the central region. Throughout the study period, ﬁve brucellosis outbreaks were idenﬁed, prompng the implementaon of targeted control measures, including the culling of 144 seroposive animals and the imposion of restricons on the distribuon of unpasteurized dairy products. These ﬁndings highlight the necessity for enhanced control measures for aﬀected herds. The study provides essenal epidemiological data to inform evidence-based policies for sustainable brucellosis control in Algeria. Key words: Bovine brucellosis; seroprevalence; risk factors; epidemiology; Algeria RESUMEN Este estudio transversal evaluó la prevalencia de brucelosis bovina y sus factores de riesgo asociados en la región de Séf de Argelia, que abarca diversas zonas agroclimácas. Entre marzo y diciembre de 2023, se recolectaron muestras de sangre de 391 vacas lecheras en 32 explotaciones y se analizaron ulizando un kit comercial ELISA ID Screen® Brucellosis Serum Indirect Mul-species (conjugado proteína G-HRP), IDVet Innovave Diagnoscs, Grabels, Francia. El estudio reveló una seroprevalencia individual del 30,18% y una prevalencia de rebaño del 84,37%, con variaciones signiﬁcavas entre zonas bioclimácas. La mayor prevalencia se observó en la zona sur (41,2%), seguida por las zonas de meseta (30,9%) y norte (23,7%). El análisis de regresión logísca idenﬁcó la introducción externa de animales (P = 0,0001; OR = 20,3; IC 95%: [5,33-77,19]), la inferlidad (P = 0,0001; OR = 8,6; IC 95%: [3,71-19,89]) y el historial de abortos (P = 0,0001; OR = 8,9; IC 95%: [3,78-20,49]) como factores de riesgo principales. La ubicación geográﬁca también inﬂuyó en el riesgo de enfermedad, con animales en la zona bioclimáca norte mostrando probabilidades signiﬁcavamente más altas de infección (P = 0,017; OR = 3,0; IC 95%: [1,22-7,54]) que en la región central. Durante el período de estudio, se idenﬁcaron cinco brotes de brucelosis, lo que llevó a la implementación de medidas de control especíﬁcas, incluyendo el sacriﬁcio de 144 animales seroposivos y restricciones en la distribución de productos lácteos no pasteurizados. Estos hallazgos subrayan la necesidad de mejorar las medidas de control para los rebaños afectados. El estudio proporciona datos epidemiológicos cruciales para informar polícas basadas en evidencia para el control sostenible de la brucelosis en Argelia. Palabras clave: Brucelosis bovina; seroprevalencia; factores de riesgo; epidemiología; Argelia Samir Laib 1 * , Abdennour Azizi 2 , Hassane Benseghir 3 , Djalel Eddine Gherissi 4 , Leila Aoun 1 , Kamel Meroud 5

Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico INTRODUCTION Bovine brucellosis, caused by Brucella abortus, remains a major zoonoc disease of global concern, with substanal prevalence reported in the Middle East, Mediterranean Basin, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Lan America [1 , 2 , 3]. The economic and public health burdens of the disease are parcularly pronounced in developing regions, where tradional animal husbandry pracces connue to facilitate its persistence [4]. Bovine brucellosis is an endemic disease in Algeria, with signiﬁcant regional variaons in its prevalence. Studies have documented diverse rates across regions, including the eastern [5 , 6] and western areas [7 , 8]. This geographical heterogeneity appears to be linked to local cultural pracces, limitaons in diagnosc capabilies, and inadequate vaccinaon programs. This varied distribuon suggests that eﬀecve control requires region-speciﬁc strategies that consider both local epidemiological paerns and socioeconomic factors [9]. Algeria’s post-independence brucellosis control strategy has evolved through various phases. The 1970 program introduced surveillance, culling, decontaminaon, and B19 calf vaccinaon [10]. In 1976, vaccinaon was disconnued as surveillance eﬀorts intensiﬁed in the aﬀected districts [11]. Naonal coverage was achieved by 1984, with the establishment of regional diagnosc laboratories and risk-based farm classiﬁcaon. The 1995 program further strengthened control measures by implemenng standardised protocols for diagnosis, cerﬁcaon, culling compensaon, quaranne, and movement restricons [12]. Despite these intervenons, bovine brucellosis remains endemic in Algeria, causing substanal economic losses [13]. Between 2002 and 2004, the mandatory culling of 2,235 cale and 5,140 small ruminants resulted in compensaon payments of 83 million Algerian dinars [14]. Brucellosis maintains its enzooc status in Algeria and poses signiﬁcant public health risks, primarily through the consumpon of unpasteurized dairy products and occupaonal exposure to infected animals [13]. This persistence highlights the need for enhanced epidemiological surveillance and risk factor idenﬁcaon to opmise the control strategies. The Séf district, located in Algeria’s eastern High Plains region, supports approximately 10% of the naonal bovine populaon [15]. The disncve triparte bioclimac zonaon and diverse agricultural pracces of this region exemplify the challenges of brucellosis control in Algeria. This study aimed to quanfy the prevalence of bovine brucellosis in Séf Wilaya and its associated risk factors, thereby contribung to development of evidence-based control strategies tailored to the region. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ethical statement The animals were studied according to the ethical principles of animal experimentaon and internaonal guidelines for animal welfare (Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2018, secon 7. Art 7.5.1) and naonal execuve decree No. 95-363 of November 11, 1995 of Algeria [16]. Study area The invesgaon was conducted in the Séf district, located in the high plains of eastern Algeria (36° - 36°30’N, 5° - 5°30’E), encompassing 6,549 km² (FIG. 1). The region is characterized by a semi-arid Mediterranean climate with disnct seasonal variaons. Based on mean annual precipitaon, the area is straﬁed into three bioclimac zones [17 ,[18]: • Northern zone: >450 mm • Central zone: 300-450 mm • Southern zone: <300 mm Study populaon Algeria’s semi-arid high plains constute a homogeneous agroecological zone containing 63% of the naonal bovine populaon [19], with Séf accounng for approximately 10% of Algeria’s cale populaon [19]. The Séf region, characterized by heterogeneous farming systems and bioclimac gradients, hosts approximately 121,000 cale, including 66,700 dairy cows, distributed across 10,758 farms [20] Study design and sample size determinaon The sample size was calculated using Thrusﬁeld’s formula for inﬁnite populaon [21]: n = z²p(1-p)/m² Where: n = required sample size, z = conﬁdence level coeﬃcient [1.96 for 95% conﬁdence], p = esmated populaon proporon [0.5 when no prior data exists], and m = tolerated margin of error [0.05 for 5% accuracy]. Given the absence of previous regional studies, an expected individual prevalence of 50% was assumed, yielding a required sample size of 384 individuals. This cross-seconal study included 391 dairy cows sampled between March and December 2023 across 32 farms in 17 communes, straﬁed by bioclimac zone. Sampling was conducted by random selecon from a list of eligible livestock producers, with a reserve list maintained for non-parcipants. Farm selecon employed telephone-based consent with replacement sampling for declining parcipants. Inclusion criteria speciﬁed cows aged ≥2 years, regardless of reproducve history. The sampling protocol implemented proporonal allocaon: • 25% sampling intensity for herds >11 cows • Complete enumeraon for herds ≤11 cows This non-probabilisc approach, suitable for assessing herd- level disease prevalence, aligns with established protocols for smallholder systems [22]. Data collecon and serological analysis Standardized quesonnaires were distributed to farm owners to evaluate reproducve indicators and potenal risk factors, 1 of 8

Seroprevalence and risk factors of bovine Brucellosis / Laib et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico yielding a thorough assessment of farm health. The risk variables are categorized into environmental, husbandry pracces, and animal health. The aributes of the biogeographical region represent a primary level of invesgaon. Farming system and co-breeding, external acquisions constute a secondary level. The health history of the animals, encompassing breed, age, aborons, sllbirths, and inferlity, informs a comprehensive evaluaon of the farm’s health concerns. Blood samples were collected via jugular venipuncture using sterile Vacutainer® tubes following physical examinaon. Samples were maintained at ≤4°C for 24 hours (h) (Réfrigérateur CONDOR CRDN560W, RF0962, Algeria) before centrifugaon (1 006 g, 10 minutes –(min)) (TDZ4-WS, Bioridge, Shanghai, China). Sera were aliquoted into sterile Eppendorf® tubes and stored at -20° (Congélateur CFH-T13GM03, Algerie) unl analysis. For serological analysis, we employed the ID Screen® Brucellosis Serum Indirect Mul-species kit (with protein G-HRP conjugate) manufactured by IDVet Innovave Diagnoscs in Grabels, France. This assay can idenfy anbodies against three Brucella species: B. suis, B. melitensis, and B. abortus. Following the protocol provided by the manufacturer, we processed each serum sample individually. A Mulskan ELISA reader (Biotek Instruments Inc, USA) was ulized to determine the opcal density (OD) at 450 nm wavelength. The interpretaon criteria established that samples with an S/P percentage exceeding 120% were considered posive, while those falling between 110-120% were deemed inconclusive, and readings below 110% were classiﬁed as negave. To calculate the S/P percentage, we applied the following equaon: S/P % = [(OD sample - OD negave control) / (OD posive control - OD negave control)] × 100. Stascal analysis Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Stascs soﬅware (Version 23.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Stascal evaluaon of brucellosis prevalence and associated risk determinants was conducted employing chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. The threshold for stascal signiﬁcance was established at P ≤ 0.05. Chi-square analysis was ulized to examine relaonships between risk factors and brucellosis seroposivity. Variables demonstrang stascal signiﬁcance (p ≤ 0.05) underwent subsequent evaluaon through binary logisc regression modeling. The model used was: Logit(Y)=α+β1X1+β2X2+⋯+βnXn, where Y represents the binary outcome, α the intercept, and β1, β2, …, βn the regression coeﬃcients for risk factors X1, X2, …, Xn. The model’s goodness of ﬁt was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The strength of associaons between risk factors and seroposivity was quanﬁed using odds raos (OR) with 95% conﬁdence intervals (CI). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This work represents the ﬁrst comprehensive epidemiological assessment of bovine brucellosis in the Séf Wilaya, it documents substanal disease burden with signiﬁcant risk factors. The ﬁndings oﬀer crucial insights to inform evidence-based control strategies and enhance disease management eﬀorts. Seroprevalence distribuon Individual-level seroprevalence in the Séf district was 30.18% (118/391), with posive cases detected in 94.11% (16/17) of surveyed communes. Seroprevalence varied considerably across bioclimac zones, with the southern zone (41.2%), followed by highland zone (30.9%) and the northern (23.7%) zones (TABLE I). Herd-level analysis revealed a prevalence of 84.37% (27/32), with seroposivity rates exhibing marked spaal heterogeneity, ranging from 3.85% in Ouled Tabane to 100% in Bazer Sakhra (TABLE I). FIG. 1 illustrates the spaal distribuon of infected farms across Sef provinces. The observed seroprevalence of 30.18% demonstrates concordance with previous studies in Batna, Algeria (28.6%) [23] and is comparable regional studies conducted in Morocco (33.48%) [24] and Senegal (36.36%) [25]. However, this prevalence markedly exceeds reported rates from central Algeria (0.81%) [14], Algiers (3.06%) [26], and several other African naons, including Ethiopia (7.17%) [27], Kenya (16.7%) [28], and Egypt (16.7%) [29], and certain Lan American countries, such as Venezuela (9.1%) [30] Higher seroprevalence has been reported in Uganda (46.8%) [31] and Togo (41%) [32], suggesng regional heterogeneity. This variability may be inﬂuenced by diﬀerence in ecological condions, husbandry pracces, biosecurity measures, and surveillance methodologies. FIGURE 1. Spaal distribuon of posive and negave brucellosis farms across Sef prov- inces 3 of 8

Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico TABLE I Brucellosis Prevalence in Cale Across Bioclimac Regions of Séf District, Algeria Bioclimate Region Commune Animals Tested [n] Posive Cases [n] Prevalence [%] Regional Total Northen region Ain roua 11 9 81.82% n = 140 Posive = 34 Prevalence = 24.29% Ain abbassa 19 14 73.68% El bouhira 67 9 13.43% Ai arnat 30 2 6.67% El mehdia 13 0 0.00% Central region Mezlougue 44 3 6.82% n = 188 Posive = 58 Prevalence = 30.85% Bazersekhra 7 7 100.00% Rmada 10 2 20.00% Ainlehdjer 29 14 48,28% Kasr-elabtal 10 2 20.00% Hammamsoukhna 8 1 12.50% Bidhaborj 40 27 67.50% Ouledtabban 26 1 3.85% Ouledsihmed 14 1 7.14% Southern region Ain azel 9 5 55.56% n = 63 Posive = 26 Prevalence = 41.27% Boutaleb 26 16 61.54% El hamma 28 5 17.86% Total 391 118 30.18% Risk factor analysis Mulvariable logisc regression analysis demonstrated high model ﬁt (χ² = 210.937, P = 0.0001; R² = 0.590; TABLE III). Among variables evaluated, ﬁve emerged as signiﬁcant predictors of seroposivity (TABLE II). The primary risk factor was external animal introducon constuted (P = 0.0001; OR = 20.3; 95% CI: [5.33-77.19]), followed by history of inferlity [P = 0.0001; OR = 8.6; 95% CI: [3.71-19.89]) and previous aboron (P = 0.0001; OR = 8.9; 95% CI: [3.78-20.49]) (TABLE III). Mulvariate analysis idenﬁed external animal introducon as the primary risk factor (OR = 20.3), corroborang with meta- analycal ﬁndings from Brazil [33] and previous epidemiological studies emphasizing the risks associated with uncontrolled animal introducon [34 ,[35] and The seasonal movement for grazing and commerce between pastoral regions [36]. The strong associaon between seroposivity and aboron history (OR = 8.6) aligns with Brucella abortus documented tropism for reproducve ssues and classical pathogenic mechanisms via placens [37]. This ﬁnding is consistent with previous Algerian studies documenng an increased aboron risk in seroposive cale [38 , 6] and is further supported by other regional epidemiological studies [39 , 40 , 41]. Similarly, a history sllbirth showed a posive associaon with seroposivity (OR = 1.8; 95% CI: [0.71-4.60]), but failed to achieve stascal signiﬁcance (P = 0.216) (TABLE III). While the odds rao suggests cows with a history of sllbirth may be 1.8 mes more likely to be seroposive, the wide conﬁdence interval crossing 1.0 and non-signiﬁcant P-value indicate a high degree of uncertainty in this relaonship. This observaon, consistent with historical data demonstrang comparable sllbirth rates between infected and uninfected cale (0.41% vs. 0.24%) [42], suggests the potenal inﬂuence of indirect eﬀects or unmeasured confounding variables. To clarify these mechanisms, future research should incorporate prospecve study designs and enhanced reproducve monitoring. Geographic locaon signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced infecon risk, with animals in the northern zone exhibing higher odds of seroposivity (P = 0.017; OR = 3.0; 95% CI: [1.22-7.54]) (TABLE III). Compared to the central region (reference category), cale in the southern region showed a trend toward higher risk of brucellosis (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: [0.85-4.59]), though this associaon did not reach stascal signiﬁcance (P = 0.112). This suggests a potenal increased risk in the southern region, but the current data does not provide strong enough evidence to conﬁrm this relaonship. This paern correlates with regional characteriscs such as high cale density, smallholder management systems, and comm unal grazing pracces, which facilitate pathogen transmission through enhanced host contact [43 , 6]. In contrast, the southern region’s arid environment and intensive farming systems exhibit a signiﬁcantly lower infecon risks (OR = 1.978, P = 0.112), aributed to reduced inter-herd contact. These epidemiological ﬁndings align with previous research. Studies in Cameroon and France have documented transmission through communal grazing areas [44 , 45], while studies in Burkina Faso idenﬁed environmental transmission via contaminated water sources [46]. Similarly, research in Pakistan highlighted the role of wildlife reservoirs as signiﬁcant disease vectors [47]. Environmental water sources [48] and wildlife populaons [49] represent addional risk factors that further explain the spaal epidemiology of the disease. 4 of 8

Seroprevalence and risk factors of bovine Brucellosis / Laib et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico TABLE II Univariate analysis for risk factors associated with the prevalence Bovine Brucellosis in Séf District, Algeria Risk Factors Modalies Brucellosis Result P Negave Posive Bioclimac Region Central 130 58 0.036 Northern 103 32 Southern 40 28 Farming system Semi-extensive 45 23 0.471 Semi-intensive 228 95 External Animal Introducon No 172 13 0.0001 Yes 101 105 Age ≤3 69 22 0.154 >3 204 96 Breed Nave 60 32 0.083 Fleckvieh 13 8 Montbéliard 157 70 Holstein 43 8 Inferlity No 167 33 0.0001 Yes 106 85 Sllbirth History No 226 23 0.0001 Yes 47 95 Aboron History No 257 65 0.0001 Yes 16 53 TABLE III Mulple Logisc Regression Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Bovine Brucellosis in Séf District, Algeria Risk Factors B S.E. Wald df Sig. OR 95% C.I.for OR Lower Upper Bioclimac Region [Central] 6,568 2 0.037 Northern 1.111 0.464 5.736 1 0.017 3.037 1.224 7.539 Southern 0.682 0.429 2.524 1 0.112 1.978 0.853 4.590 Aboron History [Yes] 2.175 0.431 25.415 1 0.0001 8.799 3.778 20.494 Sllbirth History [Yes] 0.591 0.477 1.532 1 0.216 1.805 0,708 4.600 External Animal Introducon [Yes] 3.010 0.682 19.502 1 0.0001 20.293 5.335 77.190 Inferlity History [Yes] 2.151 0.428 25.210 1 0.0001 8.592 3.711 19.894 Constant -5.204 0.667 60.816 1 0.0001 0.005 Model ﬁt: χ² = 210.937, df = 6, p < 0.001, Nagelkerke R² = 0.590 Diverse socio-economic and cultural factors signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the transmission dynamics of brucellosis across regions. Mixed farming systems, predominantly characterized by smallholder operaons where cale co-graze with small ruminants, increase the risk of cross-species transmission [50]. Cultural pracces, such as the consumpon of raw dairy products, combined with inadequate public health awareness programs, lead to substanal resistance to regulatory compliance [43]. Furthermore, the prevalence of smallholder farming systems contributes to marked regional disparies in the eﬃcacy of infecon control measures [51]. These interconnected socio-cultural factors pose considerable challenges to the implementaon of standardized disease control protocols. Control measures implementaon During the study period, ﬁve disnct brucellosis outbreaks were idenﬁed; prompng immediate intervenon by local authories. Control measures included the culling of 144 seroposive animals and the implementaon of restricons on 5 of 8

Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico the distribuon of unpasteurized dairy product within aﬀected areas. These intervenons were executed concurrently with the ongoing epidemiological invesgaon. Historically, intervenon strategies have primarily included mass vaccinaon programs in small ruminants and intermiently implemented test-and-slaughter protocols in cale populaons [52 , 51 , 7]. These control measures impose substanal economic burdens through mandatory compensaon to livestock owners and herd losses. This underscores the need to invesgate alternave infecon sources, such as wildlife reservoirs and contaminated water, and to advocate for integrated One Health approaches to opmize disease control strategies. CONCLUSION This comprehensive epidemiological invesgaon of bovine brucellosis in Algeria’s Séf region reveals substanal disease burden at both individual and herd levels, as evidenced by the idenﬁcaon of ﬁve disnct outbreaks requiring targeted intervenons. Mulvariate analysis idenﬁed external animal introducon, inferlity and aboron history as primary risk factors, indicang signiﬁcant deﬁciencies in current biosecurity protocols and herd health management pracces. The spaal heterogeneity in disease distribuon, parcularly elevated risk in northern pastoral zones, indicates an environmental eﬀect which underscores the necessity for regionally-adapted control strategies. These ﬁndings emphasize the need for enhanced control measures, including mandatory surveillance, improved biosecurity guidelines, producer educaon, and opmized compensaon policies. Future research should focus on wildlife reservoirs, socioeconomic factors, and alternave prevenon strategies. Integrang these insights into naonal one health approach could advance sustainable brucellosis control, protecng both animal and public health in Algeria. Conﬂict of interest No potenal conﬂict of interest relevant to this arcle was reported BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES [1] Schelling E, Diguimbaye C, Daoud S, Nicolet J, Boerlin P, Tanner M, Zinsstag J. Brucellosis and Q-fever seroprevalences of nomadic pastoralists and their livestock in Chad. Prev. Vet. Med. [internet]. 2003; 61(4):279-293. doi:hps://doi.org/b2hnz4 [2] Alharbi MGT, Alanazi AS, Alanazi NF, Alsaleh AK, Alanazl SJ, Alanazi SM, Alshaibani FS, Alomayri MI, Alruwaili AM, Alanazi MA. Overview Of Brucellosis: Simple Review Arcle. Pharmacophore. [Internet]. 2022; 13(2):101- 106. doi: hps://doi.org/g6zvh4 [3] Corbel MJ. Brucellosis: an overview. Emerg. Infect. Dis. [internet]. 1997; 3(2):213-221. doi: hps://doi.org/ b3mkvs [4] Lane JK, Kelly T, Bird B, Chenais E, Roug A, Vidal G, Gallardo R, Zhou H, VanHoy G, Smith W. A One Health Approach to Reducing Livestock Disease Prevalence in Developing Countries: Advances, Challenges, and Prospects. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. [Internet]. 2025; 13(1):277-302. doi: hps://doi.org/p2kw [5] Yahia A, Hamrat K, Saidani K, Kaidi R. Seroprevalence And Risk Factors Of Bovine Brucellosis In The Province Of Djelfa (ALGERIA). Indian J. Anim. Res. [Internet]. 2020; 54(11):1433-1437. doi: hps://doi.org/g4j38g [6] Kaaboub EA, Ouchene N, Ouchene-Kheliﬁ NA, Khelef D. Serological and histopathological invesgaon of brucellosis in cale in Medea region, Northern Algeria. Vet. World. [Internet]. 2019; 12(5):713-718. doi: hps:// doi.org/gj48ht [7] Khaldi NM, Tirtouil A, El Kebir A, Bendahmane M. Epidemiology and spaal distribuon of brucellosis in cale and sheep in West Algerian regions from 2002-2014. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. [internet]. 2016 [Accessed 2 May 2024]; 6(7):1-6. Available in: hps://api. semancscholar.org/CorpusID:212520608 [8] Mohammed B, Saadia BD, Fawzia H, Mohammed Z, Lahcen DB. A retrospecve study (2009-2019) on bovine brucellosis trends in western Algeria. Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res. [Internet]. 2024; 7(4):e75768. doi: hps:// doi.org/p2kx [9] Akakpo AJ, Têko-Agbo A, Koné P. L’impact de la brucellose sur l’économie et la santé publique en Afrique. Act. Conf. OIE 2009 [Accessed 2 May 2024]; 71–84. Available in : hps://goo.su/bS3Dn7j [10] Benelmouﬀok A, Cherif A, Taril A. Bovine brucellosis in Algeria: serological detecon from 1969 to 1982 and the results of the analysis. Dev. Biol. Stand. [internet]. 1984 [Accessed 2 May 2024];56:699-709. PMID: 6436120. Available in: hps://goo.su/iAr7pe [11] Benaissa R, Benaouf H. Prophylaxie de la brucellose bovine dans les unités d’élevage du secteur socialiste de la Wilaya de Annaba de 1976 à 1982. Plan de lue, résultats et recommandaons. Dev. Biol. Stand. [internet]. 1984 [Accessed 15 May 2024]; 56:727-735. Available in: hps://goo.su/2gH8YS [12] Lounes N. Historique du Dépistage et Prophylaxie de la Brucellose Bovine en Algérie. Séminaire: Dépistage des Maladies Contagieuses. Universitéde Blida. 8 et 9 novembre 2009. Recueil des Ateliers d’épidémiologie Animale. 2009 [Accessed 2 May 2024];1:5-8. Available in: hps://goo.su/myni [13] Aggad H, Boukraa L. Prevalence of bovine and human brucellosis in Western Algeria: comparison of screening tests. East. Mediterr. Health J. [internet]. 2006 [Accessed 15 May 2024]; 12(1-2):119-128. Available in:hps://goo. su/9H18UQ [14] Lounes N. Bouyoucef A. Prévalence Des Brucelloses Bovine Et Caprine Dans La Région Centre D’algérie Et Leur Impact Sur La Santé Publique. Revue INRA Algérie. [Internet]. 2008 [Accessed 15 May 2024]; 2004:152-157. Available in: hps://goo.su/vBH1I [15] Far Z, Yakhler H. Typology of cale farming systems in the semi-arid region of Sef: diversity of producve direcons?. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2015 [Accessed 10 Apr 2024]; 27(6):117. Available in: hps:// goo.su/Y03k 6 of 8

Seroprevalence and risk factors of bovine Brucellosis / Laib et al. UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico [16] Journal Oﬃciel de la République Algérienne Démocraque et Populaire. Décret exécuf nº 95-363 du 12 novembre 1995 ﬁxant les modalités d’inspecon vétérinaire des animaux vivants et des denrées animales ou d’origine animale desnées 1 à la consommaon humaine.1995 [Accessed 10 May 2024]; 68:20. Available in: hps://goo. su/oBl0f [17] Bourbouze A. Pastoralisme Au Maghreb: La Révoluon Silencieuse. Fourrages. [Internet]. 2000 [Accessed 10 May 2024] ; 161:3-21. Available in: hps://goo.su/X7FU [18] Bir A,Yakhlef H, Madani T. Diversité Des Exploitaons Agricoles Laières En Zone Semi-Aride De Séf (Algérie). Livest. Res. Rural Dev. [Internet]. 2014 [Accessed 10 Mai 2024]; 26(2):26. Available in: hps://goo.su/lSZbrI [19] Direcon des Stasques Agricoles et des Systèmes d’Informaon. Superﬁcies et producons, SERIE B. Ministère de l’Agriculture et du Développement [internet]. 2019 [Accessed Dec. 32025]. Available in: hps://goo.su/CZInV [20] Ministère de l’Intérieur, des Collecvités Locales et de l’Aménagement du Territoire. Monographie de la wilaya: Séf [Internet]. Alger: Ministère de l’Intérieur; [Accessed: 12 Jul 2025]. Available in:hps://goo.su/e1oFp [21] Thrusﬁeld M, Christley R, Brown H, Diggle PJ, French N, Howe K, Kelly L, O’Connor A, Sargeant J, Wood H. Vet. Epidemiol. Fourth Edion. Reino Unido: Wiley-Blackwell; 2018.hps://doi.org/gmcm3t [22] CannonRM, Roe RT. Livestock disease surveys: a ﬁeld manual for veterinarians. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1982. Available in:hps://goo.su/1Q3mb [23] Guidoum KA. Seroprevalence And Risk Factors Of The Main Aborve Infecous Agents Of Cale In Batna. [doctoral thesis on the Internet]. Tiaret, Argelia: Université Ibn Khaldoun ; 2021 [Accessed Le 10 Septembre 2024].. 257p. Available in: hps://goo.su/ZXhZ7n [24] Lucchese L, Benkirane A, Hakimi I, El Idrissi A, Natale A. Seroprevalence study of the main causes of aboron in dairy cale in Morocco. Vet. Ital. [Internet]. 2016; 52(1):13-19. doi:hps://doi.org/jzc2 [25] Tialla D, Koné P, Kadja M, Kamga-Waladjo A, Dieng C, Ndoye N, Kouame K, Bakou S, Akakpo A. Prévalence de la brucellose bovine et comportements à risque associés à cee zoonose dans la zone périurbaine de Dakar au Sénégal. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. [Internet]. 2015; 67(2):67-72. doi: hps://doi.org/p2qm [26] Derdour SY, Hafsi F, Azzag N, Tennah S, Laamari A, China B, Ghalmi F. Prevalence of The Main Infecous Causes of Aboron in Dairy Cale in Algeria. J. Vet. Res. [Internet]. 2017; 61(3):337-343. doi: hps://doi.org/gdt2w4 [27] Robi DT, Urge B, Bogale A, Aleme M, Temteme S. Herd and animal level seroprevalence and associated risk factors of bovine brucellosis in diﬀerent agro-ecologies of southwest Ethiopia. Heliyon. [Internet]. 2023; 9(6):e16852. doi:hps://doi.org/p2qn [28] Okumu TA, John NM, Wabacha JK, Tsuma V, VanLeeuwen J. Seroprevalence of anbodies for bovine viral diarrhoea virus, Brucella abortus and Neospora caninum, and their roles in the incidence of aboron/foetal loss in dairy cale herds in Nakuru District, Kenya. BMC Vet. Res. [Internet]. 2019; 15(1):95. doi: hps://doi.org/gg9znf [29] El-Diasty MM, Ahmed HA, Sayour AE, El Hofy FI, Tahoun AB, Shaﬁk SM. Seroprevalence of Brucella spp. in Cale, Molecular Characterizaon in Milk, and the Analysis of Associated Risk Factors with Seroprevalence in Humans, Egypt. Vector Borne Zoonoc Dis. [Internet]. 2016; 16(12):758-764. doi:hps://doi.org/f9gv9g [30] D´Pool G, Rivera-Pirela S, Torres T, Pérez M, García A, Castejón O, Rojas N. Prevalencia de brucelosis bovina mediante ELISA compevo en el Municipio La Cañada de Urdaneta, Estado Zulia, Venezuela. Rev. Cient. FCV- LUZ [Internet]. 2004 [Accessed 2025 Apr. 15]; 14(2):168- 176 Available in: hps://goo.su/sE1f [31] Kungu J, Okwee-Acai J, Ayebazibwe C, Okech S, Erume J. Sero-Prevalence And risk Factors For Brucellosis In Cale In Gulu And Amuru Districts, Northern Uganda. Africa J. Anim. Biomed. Sci. [Internet]. 2021 [Accessed 2025 Apr.15]; 5(3):36-42. Available in: hps://goo.su/YrRrzz [32] Domingo A. Current status of some zoonoses in Togo. Acta Trop. [Internet]. 2000; 76(1):65-69. doi: hps://doi. org/ddkz3x [33] Dos Santos Rocha ID, Clemenno IJ, Canuto de Sousa DL, Alves CJ, de Sousa Américo Basta Santos C, de Azevedo SS. Distribuon, seroprevalence and risk factors for bovine brucellosis in Brazil: Oﬃcial data, systemac review and meta-analysis. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. [Internet]. 2024; 56(2):153-164. doi: hps://doi.org/p2tg [34] Stringer LA, Guian FJ, Abernethy DA, Honhold NH, Menzies FD. Risk associated with animals moved from herds infected with brucellosis in Northern Ireland. Prev. Vet. Med. [Internet]; 2008; 84(1-2):72-84. doi: hps:// doi.org/dcx7sq [35] Cárdenas L, Peña M, Melo O, Casal J. Risk factors for new bovine brucellosis infecons in Colombian herds. BMC Vet. Res. [Internet]. 2019; 15(1):81. doi:hps://doi.org/ gj48ng [36] Oyetola WD, Diallo K, Kreppel K, Kone PS, Schelling E, Bonfoh B, Bada Alambedji R. Factors Inﬂuencing the Transborder Transmission of Brucellosis in Cale Between Côte d’Ivoire and Mali: Evidence From Literature and Current Key Stakeholders. Front. Vet. Sci. [Internet]. 2021; 8:630580. doi: hps://doi.org/gj479p [37] Anderson TD, Meador VP, Cheville NF. Pathogenesis of Placens in the Goat Inoculated with Brucella abortus. I. Gross and Histologic Lesions. Vet. Pathol. [Internet] 1986; 23(3):219-226. doi: hps://doi.org/p2th [38] Kardjadj M. The epidemiology of cale aboron in Algeria. Trop Anim Health Prod.[Internet]. 2018; 50(2):445-448. doi:hps://doi.org/gcxd2x [39] Alhaji NB, Wungak YS, Bertu WJ. Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in Fulani nomadic cale breeds (Bos indicus) of North-central Nigeria: Potenal risk factors and zoonoc implicaons. Acta Trop. [Internet]. 2016; 153:28-35. doi: hps://doi.org/p2tj [40] Sagamiko FD, Muma JB, Karimuribo ED, Mwanza AM, Sindato C, Hang’ombe BM. Sero-prevalence of Bovine Brucellosis and associated risk factors in mbeya region, Southern highlands of Tanzania. Acta Trop. [Internet] 2018; 178:169-175. doi: hps://doi.org/p2tk [41] Tasiame W, Emikpe BO, Folitse RD, Foﬁe CO, Burimuah V, Johnson S, Awuni JA, Afari E, Yebuah N, Wurapa F. The Prevalence Of Brucellosis In Cale And Their Handlers In 7 of 8

Revista Cienﬁca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXV UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA Serbiluz Sistema de Servicios Bibliotecarios y de Información Biblioteca Digital Repositorio Académico North Tongu District Of Volta Region, Ghana. Afr. J. Infect. Dis. [Internet] 2016; 10(2):111-117. doi: hps://doi.org/ p2tm [42] Camus E. Incidence clinique de la brucellose bovine dans le nord de la Côte-d’Ivoire. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. [Internet]. 1980 [Accessed on 20 May 2024]; 33(3):263- 269. Available in: hps://goo.su/ROYOZSY [43] Kardjadj, M. The epidemiology of human and animal brucellosis in Algeria. J. Bacteriol. Mycol. [Internet]. 2016 [Accessed on 20 May 2024]; 3(2):1025. Available in: hps://goo.su/z7jz9 [44] Awah-Ndukum J, Mouiche MMM, Bayang HN, Ngwa VN, Assana E, Feussom KJM, Manchang TK, Zoli PA. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Brucellosis among Indigenous Cale in the Adamawa and North Regions of Cameroon. Vet. Med. Int. [Internet]. 2018; 2018:3468596. doi: hps://doi.org/gj48rn [45] Verger JM, Garin-Bastuji B, Grayon M, Mahé AM. La brucellose bovine à Brucella melitensis en France. Ann. Rech. Vet. 1989 [Accessed 05 June 2024]; 20(1):93-102. Available in: hps://goo.su/TtN1g [46] Boussini H, Traoré A, Tamboura HH, Bessin R, Boly H, Ouédraogo A. Prévalence de la tuberculose et de la brucellose dans les élevages bovins laiers intra-urbains et périurbains de la ville d’Ouagadougou au Burkina Faso. Rev. Sci. Tech. [Internet]. 2012; 31(3):943-51. hps://doi. org/p2tn [47] Ali S, Akhter S, Neubauer H, Melzer F, Khan I, Abah EN, El-Adawy H, Irfan M, Muhammad A, Akbar MW, Umar S, Ali Q, Iqbal MN, Mahmood A, Ahmed H. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with bovine brucellosis in the Potohar Plateau, Pakistan. BMC Res. Notes. [Internet]. 2017; 10(1):73. doi: hps://doi.org/gj4788 [48] Yoo HS. Infecous causes of reproducve disorders in cale. J. Reprod. Dev. [Internet]. 2010; 56(5):S53-S60. doi: hps://doi.org/cr5dxs [49] Hars J, Rautureau S, Vaniscoe A, Herbaux JP, Pasquier D, Depecker A, Le Bourg V, Game Y, Toigo S, Mick V, Garin- Bastuji B. La brucellose des bouquens du massif du Bargy (Haute-Savoie) : où en est-on en 2015 ?. [Internet]. 2015 [Accessed 5 Jun 2024]; 70:14–18. Available in: hps:// goo.su/kz9Hug [50] Lounes N, Melzer F, Sayour AE, Maamar HT, Rahal K, Benamrouche N, Lazri M, Bouyoucef A, Hendam A, Neubauer H, El-Adawy H. Idenﬁcaon, geographic distribuon and risk factors of Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis infecon in cale in Algeria. Vet. Microbiol. [Internet]. 2021; 254:109004. doi: hps://doi. org/p2tr [51] Abdelhadi FZ, Abdelhadi SA, Niar A, Benallou B, Meliani S, Smail NL, Mahmoud D. Aborons In Cale On The Level Of Tiaret Area (Algeria). Glob. Vet. [Internet]. 2015;14(5):638-645. Available in: hps://goo.su/kRWb [52] Kabouia R, Khaled H, Kerrour M, Bouazziz O, Belmerzoug M. Epidemiological Study of Bovine Brucellosis In Area Constanne. Ann. Biol. Res. [Internet]. 2014 [Accessed 5 Jun 2024]; 5(3):38-41. Available In: hps://goo.su/QOS69 8 of 8