Brucella Strains at the Human–Animal Interface in Benin, Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Togo: A Scoping Review
Arnaud Soha, Beau-Gard Hougbenou, Gildas Hounmanou, Lauriano Houngbo, Horace Gankoutin, Gracia Toton, Brice Boris Legba, Victorien DougnonBackground
Brucellosis is a widespread zoonotic disease with significant impacts on both animal health and public health. This scoping review aimed to synthesize the available data on circulating Brucella species and laboratory identification methods in brucellosis research in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, and Togo.
Methods
Article selection and examination followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guidelines. Eligible studies published between 2010 and 2025 were identified through systematic searches of PubMed and Google Scholar using predefined eligibility criteria. A total of 162 articles were identified; after removing 25 duplicate records and 57 records published before 2010, 80 records were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 28 were excluded, leaving 52 reports assessed for eligibility. After full‐text reading, 8 reports were excluded, leaving 44 studies included in this review. Data extracted from each study included country, host species, sample type, identified Brucella species or biovars (when available), laboratory diagnostic methods, and study characteristics. Data were analyzed and visualized using R Version 4.5.2 with the tidyverse and ggplot2 packages.
Results
We included 44 studies, primarily from Nigeria (91%; 40/44). Studies from Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Togo, and Niger met inclusion criteria; no eligible studies were found from Benin. Genus‐level identification ( Brucella spp.) was reported in 75% (33/44) of studies, while species‐level identification was limited to 25% (11/44). Brucella abortus was the most commonly identified species (18%; 8/44). Serological methods predominated, used exclusively in 95.5% of studies (42/44), whereas molecular methods (PCR or qPCR) were used in only 2 studies (4.5%). Most studies (79.5%; 35/44) focused exclusively on animal samples, with limited integration of human (9.1%; 4/44) or food (2.3%; 1/44) samples; a further 4 studies (9.1%) combined animal samples with either human or food samples.
Conclusions
Current evidence indicates that brucellosis surveillance remains largely dependent on serological diagnosis and animal‐based investigations, with limited application of molecular strain characterization and integrated human–animal surveillance. Strengthening laboratory capacity for molecular diagnostics, expanding genomic characterization of circulating Brucella species, and implementing harmonized One Health surveillance systems are essential to improve epidemiological understanding and guide effective brucellosis control in the region.