Culture of the organism is the reference method for detection of the pathogen. However, mycoplasmas are labile, making it necessary to use a special transport medium protecting this microorganism and preventing proliferation of other bacteria. Longdistance transport of samples, particularly when unrefrigerated drastically affects the viability of the bacteria rendering them unfit for culture.16 Frequently, attempts to isolate MmmSC fail because the organism is labile, is present in too little quantities, and is so demanding in its growth requirements. Negative results should therefore always be regarded as inconclusive.1 In case of successful culture final identification of mycoplasmas is usually made by means of a biochemical test such growth inhibition, the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) or the immunofluorescence tests (IMF). Specific nucleic acid recognition using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has become common practice over the last two decades. Although most PCR protocols rely on previous culture, preenrichment, or extraction of mycoplasma, PCR is also used without prior culture, directly using samples taken from nasal swabs, bronchioalveolar lavage or transtracheal wash fluid, pleural fluid, blood, urine, or pulmonary tissue. The PCR can identify the organism in bacterial isolates or clinical material within 2 days of extraction and is sensitive and highly specific.1 An inconvenience of the PCR results from its high sensitivity, which makes it susceptible to false-positive results caused by contamination. More recently isothermal loopmediated amplification (LAMP) of DNA sequences specific for MmmSC has been developed. The LAMP assay detects MmmSC DNA directly form crude samples of pulmonary or pleural fluid and serum or plasma within 1 hour using a simple dilution protocol.16 Immunologic Tests A number of immunologic test to identify the causative agent or its antigen in tissue, biological fluids, or cultures are available. Such tests include the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFA) and the fluorescent antibody test (FAT), which both use hyperimmune rabbit serum against MmmSC and labeled antibovine IgG. The growth inhibition test (GIT) is based on direct inhibition of growth of MmmSC by a specific hyperimmune serum. Although this is a simple test to perform cross-reactions within the mycoides cluster are common.1 The antigen immunodiffusion test (AGID) has also been used to detect specific antigens present on the surface of MmmSC. The AGID is considered to lack sensitivity, and little is known about its specificity.1 Because all these tests depend on the presence of a minimum number of organisms, only positive results should be considered conclusive. Serologic Tests Serologic tests that identify an immune reaction of an individual animal to infection with MmmSC include the complement fixation test (CFT) and the competitive enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (C-ELISA). Both are prescribed tests for international trade according the OIE. This group of diagnostic tests has important limitations because of the nature of the pathogenesis of the disease with its long incubation period and the relatively rapid decline of the antibody titer.The complement fixation test (CFT) is rapid to perform and easy to interpret. With a sensitivity in the range of 70% to 80% and specificity of 98% it is best suited to diagnose clinically affected animals with acute lesions but less suitable to identify either animals in early stage of the disease, chronically infected or carrier animals with low antibody titers.1,17 The therapeutic use of antimicrobials further increases the risk of a false-negative test results. Vaccinated animals give a positive reaction for about 6 weeks, although this period may be much longer if severe vaccination reactions occur. Because of the limited sensitivity the CFT is considered unreliable on an individual animal level, but it is deemed to be highly effective in detecting infected herds when testing the entire population. The test is widely used in to determine freedom of disease on a herd level.1 Because false positive results caused by serologic cross-reactions with other species of the mycoides cluster can occur, it is advisable to confirm a positive test result by postmortem and bacteriologic examination. The C-ELISA has a similar or even greater specificity than the CFT.1,17 The sensitivity of the C-ELISA was found to be superior to the CFT particularly to detect animals in the chronic stage of the disease, whereas the CFT appears to outperform the C-ELISA in the detection of animals in the acute phase of the disease.17,18 An indirect ELISA based on a recombinant protein, LppQ-NX (LppQ ELISA), has been developed and provides good sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CBPP and is robust under harsh climatic conditions. The CFT, competitive ELISA, and LppQ ELISA, all used for detection of antibodies to MmmSC, were compared with postmortem inspection for the diagnosis of CBPP in naturally infected cattle in an endemic area in Zambia between 2007 and 2008.17 The percentage of positive sample was 67.5% for post postmortem examination, 59.0% for the C-ELISA, 52.6% for the CFT, and 44.4% for the LppQ ELISA. Of the three serologic tests the CFT identified the largest number of animals in the acute phase of the disease, whereas the C-ELISA was the most sensitive test to detect animals in advanced stages of the disease. The LppQ ELISA had a very poor sensitivity (10.8%) to identify animals in the early stage of the disease, whereas in the chronic stage it had a sensitivity ranging above the CFT but below the C- ELISA. The immunoblotting test (IB) is based on an immunoenzymatic reaction with higher sensitivity and specificity than the CFT. The IB is recommended as a confirmatory test on positive samples previously analyzed with another test because IB is not suitable for mass screening and may be difficult to standardize.1 No single serologic test is capable of detecting all CBPP affected animals in the field. These tests are most useful for diagnosis at the herd level. In the absence of a gold standard test for the serologic diagnosis of CBPP, some uncertainties remain unresolved. Suspicious CBPP cases identified by positive serology must be confirmed by further investigations that demonstrate the presence of antigen in the respiratory tissues of animals. TREATMENT Official conventional wisdom in the past held that treatment of clinical cases of CBPP with antimicrobials is counterproductive to contain the disease because it gives rise to persistent infection and may produce symptomless carrier animals.5 Accordingly, the use of antimicrobials is legally banned in many endemically affected countries. Nevertheless, the use of antimicrobials in affected regions is widespread, mainly because, with limited availability of vaccines, it is considered the only available and effective treatment and control measure.5,19 In recent years the popularity of antibiotic treatment and the perception of positive results led to some research activity suggesting that antimicrobial use may be of value primarily to control disease transmission.5 Despite the perception of veterinarians and farmers that antibiotics can alleviate the clinical course of the disease, enabling some improvement in condition, field studies suggest that antimicrobial therapy had little to no effect on severity of signs, course of the disease, and mortality rate in clinically affected animals.20,21 Treatment failures in clinically affected animals may be attributable to inadequate dosage or duration of treatment and to the chronic nature of the condition. Treatment success of antimicrobial therapy to treat mycoplasma infection greatly depends on a timely initiation of the treatment, but clinically affected animals in endemic areas frequently are in an advanced or even chronic stage of disease and thus are unlikely to show strong treatment response.21 Because of the generally poor treatment response and because these animals present a source of infection for herdmates, clinically affected animals should rather be culled than treated. In contrast the treatment of in-contact animals appeared to considerably reduce disease transmission, which resulted in a marked decrease in the disease occurrence, morbidity, and mortality rates in affected herds.21 An increasing body of evidence suggests that use of antimicrobials, primarily as a part of a disease control program, should be reconsidered.5,15,19 The major classes of antimicrobials that are effective against mycoplamsas are tetracyclines, macrolides, florfenicol, and fluoroquinolones. A number of in vitro and in vivo studies have been published in recent years with results supporting the use of fluoroquinolones, several different macrolides, and tetracyclines to reduce the shedding of MmmSC.21-24 Beta- lactam antibiotics and sulfonamides are inherently ineffective against the Mycoplasmas that do not have a cell wall and do not synthesize folic acid. CONTROL There are four essential tools in CBPP control and eradication: livestock movement control, stamping out, vaccination, and treatment.3 The possible strategies used for control in affected countries or regions are as follows: Slaughter of all sick and in-contact cattle. This requires full cooperation of cattle owners and an adequate and timely compensation system. This strategy is impractical in developing countries with a pastoral economy. Slaughter of all sick cattle and vaccination of in-contact cattle. This strategy is used frequently and usually perpetuates the disease. Vaccination of healthy cattle with slaughter of sick cattle in an epidemic and revaccination of cattle at risk. This method depends on the ability of the authorities to detect epidemics rapidly, most effectively, by abattoir surveillance and to maintain vaccination for at least 3 years. Vaccination in endemic areas must be done annually, whereas newly infected areas require repeat vaccinations aimed at eradication of the disease.