Recent studies have explored the seropositivity of Bovine alphaherpesvirus 1 (BoHV-1) in water buffaloes, suggesting the urgency for developing strategies to eradicate the virus involving both cattle and water buffaloes. However, in Europe, the glycoprotein E (gE) deleted marker vaccines against BoHV-1 are commercially available only for the cattle industry. This study, for the first time, evaluated the safety and efficacy of a commercial inactivated gE-deleted marker vaccine in water buffalo. Five animals devoid of BoHV-1-neutralizing antibodies were vaccinated via intramuscular route. Five additional animals served as an unvaccinated control group. Sixty days after the first immunization, all animals were experimentally infected with a virulent BoHV-1via intranasal route. A detectable BoHV-1-humoral immune response was observed in the vaccinated group on post-vaccination day 30, whereas the antibodies appeared on post-challenge day 10 in the control group. Moreover, the vaccinated animals neither show viral shedding nor clinical signs compared to the control upon challenge. However, post-challenge, the BoHV-1-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were significantly more increased in vaccinated animals than the control animals. Overall, the present study provides evidence of both the safety and efficacy of an inactivated gE-deleted marker vaccine against BoHV-1 in water buffaloes.

Three commercially available infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) live marker vaccines were evaluated for their ability to provide clinical protection to vaccinated calves against wild-type (wt) Bovine alphaherpesvirus-1 (BoHV-1) challenge and their possible effect on wt BoHV-1 latency reactivation following the challenge. On 35 post-vaccination days (PVDs), all animals were challenged with wt BoHV-1. Only the calves in the control group developed severe forms of IBR. The reactivation of latent BoHV-1 was induced by dexamethasone (DMS) treatment on 28 post-challenge days (PCDs). All animals showed IBR clinical signs on three post-DMS treatment days (PDTDs). On PVD 14, all vaccinated animals developed neutralizing antibodies (NAs), whereas in control animals, the NAs appeared post-challenge. The positivity for glycoprotein-B (gB) was detected using real-time polymerase chain reactions in all animals from PCDs 1 to 7. In contrast, the gB-positivity was observed in the immunized calves from PDTDs 3 to 10. Positive expression of gD and gE was observed in nasal swabs of all calves on PDTD 7. These findings suggested that the IBR marker vaccines evaluated in this study protected against wt BoHV-1-induced disease but not against wt BoHV-1-induced latency reactivation, indicating the necessity of developing new products to protect animals from wt BoHV-1-induced latency.

No abstract

European regulations on the control of infectious diseases provide measures to control Bovine alphaherpesvirus 1 (BoHV-1) infection in both cattle and buffalo. Owing to the reported serological cross-reactivity between BoHV-1 and Bubaline alphaherpesvirus 1 (BuHV-1), we hypothesized a new immunization protocol using BoHV-1 gE-deleted marker vaccines could protect water buffalo against BuHV-1. Five water buffaloes devoid of BoHV-1/BuHV-1-neutralizing antibodies were immunized with two commercial BoHV-1 gE-deleted marker vaccines at 0, 30, 210, and 240 post-vaccination days (PVDs). Five additional water buffaloes were used as controls. At 270 PVD (0 post-challenge days (PCDs), all animals were challenged intranasally with wild-type (wt) BuHV-1. The vaccinated animals produced humoral immunity (HI) as early as PVD 30 whereas, in control animals, antibodies were detected on PCD 10. After challenge infection, HI significantly increased in vaccinated animals compared to that in controls. Real-time PCR for gB revealed viral shedding in vaccinated animals from PCDs 2 to 10. In contrast, positive results were observed from PCDs 2 to 15 in the unvaccinated control group. Although the findings indicated the possible protection capabilities of the tested protocol, these findings did not support its protective roles in water buffaloes against wt-BuHV-1.