4.3 Article

The detection of antibody against peste des petits ruminants virus in Sheep, Goats, Cattle and Buffaloes

Journal

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 521-527

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-008-9129-2

Keywords

peste des petits ruminants; cELISA; prevalence; sheep and goats; cattle and buffaloe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monoclonal antibody-based competitive ELISA (C-ELISA) has been used for the specific measurement of antibodies to peste des petits ruminants (PPR) viruses in sheep, goats, cattle and Buffalo. Serum samples from sheep (n = 232), goats (n = 428), cattle (n = 43), buffalo (n = 89) were tested. The animals had not been vaccinated against rinderpest or PPR. Findings suggested that the sero-positive cases were significantly higher in sheep (51.29%) than in goats (39.02%) (P = 0.002). The overall sero-prevalence of PPRV in small ruminants was 43.33%. The PPR antibodies seroprevalence was 67.42% in buffalo and 41.86% in cattle which was significantly higher in buffalo (P = 0.005). The overall sero-prevalence of PPRV in large ruminants was 59.09%. Cattle and buffalo sera showed a high prevalence of antibody against PPR virus which may explain the difficulty experienced in achieving high post-vaccination immunity levels against rinderpest. Because antibodies against PPR virus are both cross-neutralizing and cross-protective against rinderpest virus, further vaccination in the presence of antibodies against PPR virus may be a waste of national resources. It was also suggested that antibodies to PPR virus could prevent an immune response to the rinderpest vaccine. This paper presents serological evidence for the transmission of PPR virus from sheep and goats to cattle and buffalo and highlights the need to include PPR serology in the sero-monitoring programme to give a better indication of national herd immunity of sheep and goats against PPR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available