TO SEARCHING THE REASONS FOR SENSITIZING MACROORGANISM TO TUBERCULIN

The lack of universal methods for differentiating non-specific reactions to tuberculin significantly complicates and inhibits the diagnosis of animal tuberculosis. It is important to note that practical efforts in differential diagnosis are mainly aimed at identifying sensitization caused by atypical mycobacteria, not taking into account the sensitizing role of other microorganisms having a genus-specific community with mycobacteria. Obviously, the results of a study of the role of these microorganisms are important for establishing animal welfare for tuberculosis. The ability of mycobacterium-like microorganisms, corynebacteria, nocardia and rhodococci to sensitize a macroorganism was studied. Infected guinea pigs reacted with a higher intensity to a homologous allergen than a heterologous one. A low sensitizing role of epizootic strains was revealed. Results of the reaction rosette formation showed the presence the common with mycobacteria antigen in corynebacteria. In animals infected with mycobacteria, there was an increase in the number of T- and B-lymphocytes throughout the experiment. In animals infected with corynebacteria there was a decrease in B-cells at the third stage of the study and T-lymphocytes at the second one. The results of the production experiment were confirmed laboratory indicators. In a tuberculosis-free farm, 14 tuberculin-responsive animals (cattle) with unspecified results of a simultaneous test were divided into 2 groups, 7 animals were examined in a simultaneous test with tuberculin and corynebacteriosis sensitin, 7 - with nocardial. The specificity of the monoallergens studied was revealed: the response to corynebacteriosis sensitin is more intense than to tuberculin (6.3 ± 0.09 and 5.8 ± 0.17, respectively), in the second group, the intensity was 4.3 ± 0.15 per nocardial allergen and 6.2 ± 0.27 per tuberculin. The data obtained expand the understanding of the causes of the sensitization of a macroorganism to tuberculin.

1. Донченко А. С. Диагностика туберкулеза КРС / А. С. Донченко, Н. П. Овдиенко, Н. А. Донченко / - Новосибирск, 2004. - 306 с

2. Найманов А. Х. Проблемы диагностики и профилактики туберкулеза КРС в современных условиях / А. Х. Найманов // Ветеринарная патология. -2004. - № 1-2 (9). - С. 18-23

3. Смирнов А. Н. Современные проблемы диагностики туберкулеза животных // Ветеринарная патология. - 2004. - № 1. - Т. 2 (9). - С. 10-13

4. Collins M. D. Distribution of isoprenoid quinore structural types in bacteria and their taxonomic implications / M. D. Collins, D. Jones // Microbiol. Pev. - 1991. - 4. - № 2. - P. 316-354

5. Баратов М. О. Кислотоустойчивые микроорганизмы - микобактерии, нокардии, родококки: химический состав, биологические свойства, антигенная структура / М. О. Баратов, Р. А. Нуратинов // Проблемы туберкулеза. - 2001. - № 5. - С. 54-58

6. Баратов М. О. К выяснению причин неспецифических реакции на туберкулин / М. О. Баратов, М. М. Ахмедов, О. П. Сакидибиров // Ветеринарный врач. - Казань. - 2014. - № 2. - С. 24-27

7. Лискова Е. А. Новый подход к выделению микобактерий, нокардиоформных актиномицетов и коринебактерий / Е. А. Лискова, К. Н. Слинина // Вестник Алтайского государственного аграрного университета. - 2016. - С. 23-28

8. Нуратинов Р. А. К вопросу диагностики туберкулеза КРС / Р. А. Нуратинов // Ветеринария. - 1990. - № 8. - С. 20-21

9. Goren M. B. Some observations on mycobacterial acidfastness / M. B. Goren, M. Cerneh, O. Brokl // Amer. Rev. Respirat. Discase. - 1990. - 188. - N 1. - P. 151-154

10. Jensen H. L. Studies on the saprophytic mycobacteria and corynebacteria / H. L. Jensen // Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. - 1994. - 59. - N 1 (2). - P. 19-61