4.6 Article

Genomic Epidemiology of Clinical Brucella melitensis Isolates from Southern Israel

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10020238

关键词

zoonosis; Brucella melitensis; WGS; cgMLST; cgSNPs

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Israel [16-18-0002]
  2. MDPI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used whole-genome sequencing to analyze the genomic epidemiology of Brucella melitensis in Southern Israel, revealing a complex transmission pattern of the disease among Bedouin communities. The study found no dominant strain and identified local and household-based transmission as the main modes of spread.
Brucellosis, a zoonosis mainly transmitted by consumption of unpasteurized dairy products, is endemic in Southern Israel, mainly among the Bedouin Arab population. However, the genomic epidemiology of B. melitensis in this region has not yet been elucidated. A cohort of brucellosis cases (n = 118) diagnosed between 2017-2019 was studied using whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Phylogenetic analyses utilized core genome MLST (cgMLST) for all local isolates and core genome SNPs for 347 human-associated B. melitensis genomes, including Israeli and publicly available sequences. Israeli isolates formed two main clusters, presenting a notable diversity, with no clear dominance of a specific strain. On a global scale, the Israeli genomes clustered according to their geographical location, in proximity to genomes originating from the Middle East, and formed the largest cluster in the tree, suggesting relatively high conservation. Our study unveils the genomic epidemiology of B. melitensis in Southern Israel, implicating that rather than a common source, the transmission pattern of brucellosis among Bedouin communities is complex, predominantly local, and household-based. Further, genomic surveillance of B. melitensis is expected to inform future public health and veterinary interventions and clinical care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据