BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is one of the most dangerous worldwide infectious zoonotic diseases that are common between ruminants and human. Consumption of infected milk and by-products is the major transmission source to human. In Iran, sheep compared to cow, has a higher rate of contamination with brucellosis. Therefore, early detection and precision could be a starting point for any efficient program to control the disease in human and animals. For brucellosis monitoring, milk ring test (MRT) is recommended but the test is not reliable in sheep herds. Perhaps a more realistic outcome could be achieved by changing the antigen used in MRT. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of two Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis antigens in MRT for detection of Brucella antibodies in milk, as well as monitoring contamination of  ewe’s milk in Dezful region by detection of B. abortus and B. melitensis genes using PCR. METHODS: In this research, 220 milk samples from 16 different herds were collected from Dezful region’s nomadic at Khuzestan province. As the first step, MRT by two antigens, B. abortus and B. melitensis, were conducted on the samples. Next, the samples were subjected to detect Brucella genes using PCR technique. RESULTS: Results showed that 47 (21/3 %) out of 220 cases were positive by MRT test, in terms of both antigens of B. abortus and B. melitensis. In PCR, out of 220 samples, only 9 (4%) samples were positive for specific genes of B. melitensis which were MRT positive as well. CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference between B. abortus and B. melitensis antigens was not observed in MRT. Although the nature and basis of PCR and MRT methods for the diagnosis of brucellosis is different but a significant difference between the results obtained by PCR and MRT showed that MRT even by changing of antigens is still not authentic. Considering that various methods of identification have their limitations, it is recommended that in ewe’s milk samples, in addition to using a serological method as screening, PCR and culture methods should be used for definitive diagnosis.

Infectious diseases of livestockare a major threat to global animal health and welfare and their effective control is crucialfor agronomic health, for safeguarding and securing national and international food supplies and for alleviating rural povertyin developing countries. Some devastating livestock diseases are endemic in many parts of the world and threats from old and new pathogens continue to emerge, with changes to global climate, agricultural practices and demography presenting conditions that are especially favourable for the spread of arthropod-borne diseases into new geographical areas. Zoonotic infections that are transmissible either directly or indirectly between animals and humans are on the increase and pose significant additional threats to human health and the current pandemic status of new influenza A (H1N1) is a topical example of the challenge presented by zoonotic viruses (Tomley and Shirley, 2009). Malaysia, being one of the members of the World Organisation forAnimal Health (OIE) which is responsible for setting standards for control of animal diseases. For year 2017, the list included 116 animal diseases, infections and infestations, many of which are zoonotic in nature. As such, this paper discusses the commonzoonotic infections diagnosed in the five Regional Veterinary Laboratories which are spread across the country and entrustedto carry out diagnostic tests to aid in the treatment and control of animal diseases. A total of almost half a million samples weretested comprising more than a million tests to help the Department of Veterinary Services control and eradicate economically important diseases to safeguard the animal population. Of these, zoonotic diseases comprise a small but significant entity which needs careful attention (Chandrawathani et al., 2017) Dora Tan (1981) reported that among the many zoonotic diseases prevalent in Malaysia, are leptospirosis, rabies, influenza, Japanese encephalitis, toxoplasmosis,ornithosis, Q fever and monkeypox which have been investigated at the lnstitute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur. The regional laboratories have full capability to conduct tests to confirm parasitic, viral and bacterial infections except for rabies andavian influenza, which was diagnosed in the Veterinary Research Institute. However, preliminary tests for avian influenza wascarried out in regional laboratories.

Brucellosis is one of the common zoonoses caused by Brucella abortus (B. abortus). However, little has been reported on factors affecting invasion of B. abortus into host cells. To investigate cell-type dependent invasion of B. abortus, phagocytic RAW 264.7 and THP-1 cells and non-phagocytic HeLa cells were infected with wild-type and mutant B. abortus, and their invasion efficiencies were compared. The invasion efficiencies of the strains were cell-type dependent. Wild-type B. abortus invasion efficiency was greater in phagocytic cells than in epithelial cells. The results also indicated that there are different factors involved in the invasion of B. abortus into phagocytic cells.

Forty-nine fresh goat’s milk samples produced by local farmers and sold in market for public consumption as well as raw goat milk in Johor, Malaysia were analysed for total plate count(TPC) , E. coli, Coliform, Brucella melitensis, Brucella abortus,Coxiella burnetii as well as aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) content, as measures for food safety. The mean counts per ml for TPC were 4.90 x 105, 6.50 x 105, 1.60 x 105 and 1.48 x 106 for pasteurised, unpasteurised and unknown (status of pasteurisation) milk sold in the market as well as the raw milk from milkcollection center (MCC), respectively. Among pasteurised samples, only one had TPC count higher than the permitted level whereas the rest were all within the permitted level. The mean counts per ml for E. coli were <1.00 x 102 for pasteurised and unknown milkwhereas 1.67 x 101 for unpasteurised and 1.18 x 102 for raw milk. The mean counts per ml for coliform were 9.53 x 103, 9.76 x103, 1.20 x 102 and 1.16 x 104 for pasteurised, unpasteurised, unknown milk and raw milk, respectively. Overall, no significantdifferences on the bacterial counts in both pasteurised and unpasteurised milk. All milk samples were negative of B. melitensis and B. abortus, but one unknown sample fromthe market and two raw samples from MCC were positive of C. burnetii through the ELISA test. The unknown sample from the market showed the presence of C. burnetii when further analysed microscopically. Meanwhile, no sample exceeded the permitted level of AFM1 in milk.