Download full text in PDF

Zavhorodnii AI, Bilushko VV, Paliy AP, Pozmohova SA, Kaplinskyi VV, Ushkalov VO, Kamratska OI. Markers of tuberculosis process in cattle caused by pathogens of different species. Bìol Tvarin. 2026; 28 (1): 32–39. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol28.01.032.
https://doi.org/10.15407/animbiol28.01.032
Received 21.05.2026 ▪ Revision 26.05.2026 ▪ Accepted 10.05.2026 ▪ Published online 11.06.2026

Markers of tuberculosis process in cattle caused by pathogens of different species

A. I. Zavhorodnii¹, V. V. Bilushko¹,²*, A. P. Paliy¹,³, S. A. Pozmohova¹, V. V. Kaplinskyi², V. O. Ushkalov⁴, O. I. Kamratska⁵
*This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

¹National Scientific Center “Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine”, 83 Hryhoriia Skovorody str., Kharkiv, 61023, Ukraine
²Institute of Animal Biology NAAS, 38 V. Stusa str., Lviv, 79034, Ukraine
³State Biotechnological University, 44 Alchevskykh str., Kharkiv, 61002, Ukraine
⁴National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15 Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv 03041, Ukraine
⁵Stepan Gzhytskyi National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies Lviv, 50 Pekarska str., Lviv, 79010, Ukraine

The diagnosis of tuberculosis in animals is a complex process that is crucial for determining the effectiveness of measures to combat this disease. Currently, tuberculosis in animals is not reported in Ukraine; however, each year, 40–60 livestock farms need to assess the epizootic situation regarding this disease due to nonspecific allergic reactions to tuberculin in cows during routine diagnostic tests. This article presents generalized and systematized findings from long-term studies (2000–2024) on comprehensive anti-tuberculosis measures for cattle in various types of Ukrainian farms. This complex included epizootic, clinical, allergic, pathological, bacteriological, and statistical research methods. Based on the experiences gained from scientific and practical work, key criteria (or markers) for establishing a tuberculosis diagnosis in cattle and differentiating this disease within herds have been identified. In addition, the presented work contains original photographs that demonstrate pathological macroscopic changes characteristic of the course of the infectious tuberculosis process in animals, as well as the cultural and morphological features of mycobacterial cultures isolated from biological material. The main indicators (markers) characterizing the course of epizootic and infectious tuberculosis process in cattle herds and used to diagnose this disease were identified: clinical signs, the manifestation of allergy, pathological signs, source of the infectious agent, environmental conditions, biochemical tests, type of laboratory animals.

Keywords: mycobacteria, tuberculosis, cattle, markers, diagnostic complex

1. Ahmad I, Raji YE, Hassan L, Samaila A, Aliyu B, Zinsstag J, Fasina FO. Systematic review and meta-analysis of tuberculosis in animals in Nigeria. Heliyon. 2023; 9 (6) :e17215. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17215.
2. Azami HY, Zinsstag J. Economics of bovine tuberculosis: An One Health issue. In: Chambers M, Gordon S, Olea-Popelka F, Barrow P (eds). Bovine tuberculosis. CAB International, 2018: 31–42. DOI: 10.1079/9781786391520.0031.
3. Bogach MV, Paliy AP, Perotsʼka LV, Pyvovarova IV, Stoyanova VY, Palii AP. The influence of hydro-meteorological conditions on the spread of chicken cestodiasis. Reg Mech Biosys. 2020; 11 (3): 414–418. DOI: 10.15421/022063.
4. Borham M, Oreiby A, El-Gedawy A, Hegazy Y, Khalifa HO, Al-Gaabary M, Matsumoto T. Review on bovine tuberculosis: An emerging disease associated with multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium Pathogens. 2022; 11 (7): 715. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11070715.
5. Chechet ON, Kovalenko VL, Garkavenko TO, Gorbatyuk OI, Kozytska TH. Efficiency of “Biolide” disinfectant working solutions for action on gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria. Bìol Tvarin. 2021; 23 (4): 66–72. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol23.04.066. (in Ukrainian)
6. Dean AS, Torres G, Rozov O, Kasaeva T. Zoonotic tuberculosis in the 21^st Lancet Infect Dis. 2024; 24 (6): e344. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00180-4.
7. Delghandi MR, Waldner K, El-Matbouli M, Menanteau-Ledouble S. Identification Mycobacterium in the natural water of two Austrian rivers. Microorganisms. 2020; 8 (9): 1305. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8091305.
8. Ehlers LP, Bianchi MV, Argenta FF, Lopes BC, Taunde PA, Wagner PGC, Driemeier D, Pavarini SP, Mayer FQ, Siqueira FM, Sonne L. Mycobacterium tuberculosis tuberculosis infection in two captive black capuchins (Sapajus nigritus) in Southern Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2020; 51 (4): 2169–2173. DOI: 10.1007/s42770-020-00339-5.
9. Falkinham JO. Ecology of nontuberculous mycobacteria — where do human infections come from? Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2013; 34 (1): 95–102. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1333568.
10. Feshchenko YI, Zhurylo OA, Babarova AI. Laboratory Diagnosis of Tuberculosis Infection. A study guide. Kyiv, Medicine, 2019: 304 p. ISBN 978-617-505-761-2. (in Ukrainian)
11. Ghebremariam MK, Rutten VP, Vernooij JC, Uqbazghi K, Tesfaalem T, Butsuamlak T, Idris AM, Nielen M, Michel AL. Prevalence and risk factors of bovine tuberculosis in dairy cattle in Eritrea. BMC Vet Res. 2016; 12: 80. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0705-9.
12. Giusti A, Carbonetta L, Fratini F, Spatola G, Panerai F, Pardini S, Cianti L, Armani A. An overview of a re-emerging disease in Italy: Bovine tuberculosis outbreaks in cattle from MTBC-free territories. Pathogens. 2024; 13 (11): 962. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13110962.
13. Gormley E, Corner LAL. Wild animal tuberculosis: Stakeholder value systems and management of disease. Front Vet Sci. 2018; 5: 327. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00327.
14. Islam SS, Pateras K, Kabir SML, Kostoulas P, Ward MP, Rahman AKMA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of bovine tuberculosis occurrence and burden in Bangladesh, 1970–2023. Epidemiol Infect. 2024; 152: e126. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268824001328.
15. Kock R, Michel AL, Yeboah-Manu D, Azhar EI, Torrelles JB, Cadmus SI, Brunton L, Chakaya JM, Marais B, Mboera L, Rahim Z, Haider N, Zumla A. Zoonotic tuberculosis — the changing landscape. Int J Infect Dis. 2021; 113 (S1): S68–72. DOI: 10.1016/ijid.2021.02.091.
16. Korniienko LY, Pyskun AV, Ukhovskyi VV, Karpulenko MS, Moroz OA, Pyskun OO, Tsarenko TM, Aliekseieva GB. Retrospective analysis of the control and prevention of tuberculosis among cattle in Ukraine in the period 1994–2020. Reg Mech Biosys. 2021; 12 (2): 301–306. DOI: 10.15421/022140.
17. Kurtjak BM, Shevchuk VM, Suchomlin KB, Vishchur OI, Solovei LM, Romanovich MS, Rudenko OP. Peculiarities of epizootological surveillance and control of mycobacteriosis in productive animals in the conditions of dairy farms of Ukraine. Bìol Tvarin. 2024; 26 (1): 17–23. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol26.01.017. (in Ukrainian)
18. Macedo Couto R, Ranzani OT, Waldman EA. Zoonotic tuberculosis in humans: Control, surveillance, and the One Health approach. Epidemiol Rev. 2019; 41 (1): 130–144. DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxz002.
19. Maharjan B, Gopali RS, Zhang Y. A scoping review on climate change and tuberculosis. Int J Biometeorol. 2021; 65 (10): 1579–1595. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-021-02117-w.
20. Male Here RR, Ryan E, Breslin P, Frankena K, Byrne AW. Revisiting the relative effectiveness of slaughterhouses in Ireland to detect tuberculosis lesions in cattle (2014–2018). PLoS One. 2022; 17 (10): e0275259. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275259.
21. McArthur DB. Emerging infectious diseases. Nurs Clin North Am. 2019; 54 (2): 297–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.cnur.2019.02.006.
22. Montero E, Rojo-Solís C, de Castro N, Fernández M, Pérez V, Corpa JM, Ortega J. Clinical and pathological findings associated with mycobacteriosis in captive syngnathids. Animals. 2022; 12 (23): 3259. DOI: 10.3390/ani12233259.
23. Moyo M, Lebina L, Milovanovic M, MacPherson P, Michel A, Martinson N. Tuberculosis patients at the human-animal interface: Potential zooanthroponotic and zoonotic transmission. One Health. 2021; 13: 100319. DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100319.
24. Mushtaq F, Raza SM, Ahmad A, Aslam H, Adeel A, Saleem S, Ahmad I. Antimicrobial drug resistant features of Mycobacterium tuberculosis associated with treatment failure. PLoS One. 2023; 18 (10): e0293194. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293194.
25. Nagy O, Tóthová C, Mudroň P. Selected acute phase proteins in dairy cows with chronic diarrhea caused by Mycobacterium avium Paratuberculosis. Bìol Tvarin. 2019; 21 (2): 50–53. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol21.02.050.
26. Nuraini DM, Pradista LA, Andityas M, Pangestiningsih TW, Widyas N. A meta-analysis of bovine tuberculosis in Indonesia: A concerning zoonotic disease. J Adv Vet Res. 2024; 14 (7): 1264–1268. Available at: https://advetresearch.com/index.php/AVR/article/view/2035
27. Olea-Popelka FJ, Muwonge A, Perera A, Dean AS, Mumford E, Erlacher-Vindel E, Forcella S, Silk BJ, Ditiu L, El Idrissi A, Raviglione M, Cosivi O, LoBue P, Fujiwara PI. Zoonotic tuberculosis in human beings caused by Mycobacterium bovis — a call for action. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017; 17 (1): e21–e25. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30139-6.
28. Paliy AP. Differential sensitivity of mycobacterium to chlorine disinfectants. Mikrobiol Z. 2018; 80 (2): 104–116. DOI: 10.15407/microbiolj80.02.104. (in Ukrainian)
29. Paliy AP, Zavgorodniy AI, Bilushko VV, Kaplinsky VV, Tsap MM, Romanovych MM, Sukhomlin KB. Ecology of mycobacteriums under conditions of abiotic and biotic factors. Bìol Tvarin. 2024; 26 (4): 64–68. DOI: 10.15407/animbiol26.04.064. (in Ukrainian)
30. Paliy A, Zavgorodnii A, Rodionova K, Borovkov S, Pavlichenko O, Dubin R, Ihnatieva T. Resistance of different types of nontuberculos mycobacteria to aldehyde disinfectants. Vet Arhiv. 2024; 94 (6): 499–512. DOI: 10.24099/vet.arhiv.2515.
31. Pavlik I, Ulmann V, Falkinham JO. Nontuberculous mycobacteria: Ecology and impact on animal and human health. Microorganisms. 2022; 10 (8): 1516. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10081516.
32. Petrovska I, Salyha Y, Vudmaska I. Statistical Methods in Biological Research. Educational and methodological manual. Agrarian science, 2022: 172 p. ISBN 978-966-540-551-1. (in Ukrainian)
33. Ramos DF, Silva PEA, Dellagostin OA. Diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis: Review of main techniques. Braz J Biol. 2015; 75 (4): 830–837. DOI: 10.1590/1519-6984.23613.
34. Ryu YJ, Koh WJ, Daley CL. Diagnosis and treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease: Clinicians’ perspectives. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2016; 79 (2): 74–84. DOI: 10.4046/trd.2016.79.2.74.
35. Sgaragli G, Frosini M. Human tuberculosis I. Epidemiology, diagnosis and pathogenetic mechanisms. Curr Med Chem. 2016; 23 (25): 2836–2873. DOI: 10.2174/0929867323666160607222854.
36. Sharma M, Karikalan M, Asok Kumar M, Sree Lakshmi P, Sharma K, Ilayaraja S, Mathur A, Pawde AM. A study on clinical diagnosis of tuberculosis in free ranging and captive wild animals of India. Iran J Vet Res. 2022; 23 (4): 369–374. DOI: 10.22099/IJVR.2022.44272.6512.
37. Sichewo PR, Vander Kelen C, Thys S, Michel AL. Risk practices for bovine tuberculosis transmission to cattle and livestock farming communities living at wildlife-livestock-human interface in northern KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020; 14 (3): e0007618. DOI: 1371/journal.pntd.0007618.
38. Thomas J, Balseiro A, Gortázar C, Risalde MA. Diagnosis of tuberculosis in wildlife: A systematic review. Vet Res. 2021; 52: 31. DOI: 10.1186/s13567-020-00881-y.
39. Tora E, Getachew M, Seyoum W, Abayneh E. Public awareness, prevalence and potential determinants of bovine tuberculosis in selected districts of Gamo zone, Southern Ethiopia. Vet Med Res Rep. 2022; 13: 163–172. DOI: 10.2147/VMRR.S370733.
40. Varela-Castro L, Barral M, Arnal MC, Fernández de Luco D, Gortázar C, Garrido JM, Sevilla IA. Beyond tuberculosis: Diversity and implications of non-tuberculous mycobacteria at the wildlife-livestock interface. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022; 69 (5): e2978–2993. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14649.
41. Vordermeier HM, Ameni G, Berg S, Bishop R, Robertson BD, Aseffa A, R. Hewinson G, Young DB. The influence of cattle breed on susceptibility to bovine tuberculosis in Ethiopia. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 35 (3): 227–232. DOI: 10.1016/cimid.2012.01.003.
42. WHO (World Health Organization). Global tuberculosis report 2022. 2024. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/363752 (last access July 2, 2024)
43. WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health). Bovine tuberculosis. 2024. Available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-dise (last access July 2, 2024)
44. Yanti B, Soetjipto, Mertaniasih NM, Amin M. Perbedaan karakteristik demografi dan klinis infeksi Mycobacterium tuberculosis dan Mycobacterium bovis dari bronchoalveolar lavage subjek tuberkulosis paru. J Respir Indo. 2019; 39 (4) :238–244. DOI: 10.36497/jri.v39i4.76.
45. Zavgorodnii AI, Pozmogova SA, Kalashnyk MV, Paliy AP, Plyuta LV, Palii AP. Etiological factors in triggering non-specific allergic reactions to tuberculin in cattle. Reg Mech Biosys. 2021; 12 (2): 228–233. DOI: 10.15421/022131.
46. Zavhorodnii A, Bilushko V, Paliy A, Kalashnyk M, Kalashnyk N, Paliy A. Freeze-drying improved the stability of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) in mammals. Probl Cryobiol Cryomed. 2022; 32 (1): 63–67. DOI: 10.15407/cryo32.01.063.
47. Zhurylo OA, Barbova AI, Sladkova LM. Mycobacterium avium is the causative agent of human mycobacteriosis. Ukr Pulmonol J. 2020; 1: 50–58. DOI: 31215/2306-4927-2020-107-1-50-58. (in Ukrainian)