4.7 Article

Efficacy of the marker vaccine rAdV-SFV-E2 against classical swine fever in the presence of maternally derived antibodies to rAdV-SFV-E2 or C-strain

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 50-54

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.10.001

关键词

Classical swine fever; Marker vaccine; Maternally derived antibodies; Efficacy; Interference

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31570149]
  2. Science and Technology Innovation Project of Harbin [2014RFQYJ126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classical swine fever (CSF) is an economically important disease caused by Classical swine fever virus (CSFV). In order to eradicate CSF, many marker vaccines that allow differentiation of infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) have been developed. In our previous studies, a DIVA CSF vaccine rAdV-SFV-E2 has been demonstrated to completely protect pigs against lethal CSFV challenge. In the context of risk assessments for an emergency vaccination scenario, the question has been raised whether preexisting maternally derived antibodies (MDAs) interfere with the efficacy of the vaccine. In this study, six groups of piglets (n = 5), with or without anti-C-strain or anti-rAdV-SFV-E2 MDAs, were immunized twice with 10(6) TCID50 rAdV-SFV-E2 and challenged with the CSFV Shimen strain. Clinical signs, CSFV-specific antibodies, viremia and pathological and histopathological changes were monitored. The results showed that the vaccinated piglets, either with or without MDAs directed against C-strain (about 67% blocking rate) or rAdV-SFV-E2 (about 50% blocking rate) were completely protected; however, the mock vaccinated piglets displayed severe CSF-typical clinical symptoms, viremia, pathological/histopathological changes and deaths (5/5). These findings demonstrate that the MDAs to either rAdV-SFV-E2 or C-strain do not interfere with the efficacy of rAdV-SFV-E2, which highlights the great potential of the vaccine for control and eradication of CSF. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据