Cross-Protection Between Geographically DistinctAnaplasma marginaleIsolates Appears to be Constrained by Limited Antibody Responses

Abstract

Summary The rickettsia Anaplasma marginale causes the haemolytic disease bovine anaplasmosis, an economic problem in tropical and subtropical areas worldwide. The closely related but less pathogenic Anaplasma centrale is commonly used as a live vaccine to prevent anaplasmosis, but it can only be produced from infected blood. UFMG1 is a low pathogenic Brazilian strain of A. marginale, which has been shown to protect cattle against a high pathogenic Brazilian isolate. As UFMG1 can be grown in tick cells, the strain was proposed as a possible cell culture‐derived vaccine. We have evaluated whether UFMG1 could protect cattle against a geographically distant heterologous strain, using A. centrale vaccination as a standard for comparison. Trial calves were infected with UFMG1, A. centrale or PBS. UFMG1‐infected animals were more symptomatic than those infected with A. centrale, but none required treatment. All calves were then challenged with the Israeli A. marginale Gonen strain (one of the most prevalent strain in Israel). The A. centrale group had the mildest symptoms, while UFMG1 and control groups both had a more severe response. Nevertheless, the challenge did not cause life‐threatening disease in any group. Animals infected with A. centrale had a significantly higher IgG response than UFMG1, when measured in an ELISA against initial bodies from their homologous strain or Gonen. The level of cross‐reactivity of the response to initial infection correlated significantly with reduced symptoms after challenge. In conclusion, UFMG1 had limited effect in preventing disease by the geographically distant heterologous Gonen strain. While the low pathogenicity of the Gonen strain in this trial makes it impossible to conclusively state that UFMG1 would have given no protective effect against more serious disease, the comparatively low IgG response to UFMG1 suggests it would not have been as effective as A. centrale.

Dynamics of Infections in Cattle and Rhipicephalus microplus: A Preliminary Study

“…Tick immunity or resistance to A. marginale , along with variations in tick developmental stages and environmental conditions, may also play a role in preventing infection [ 36 ]. Additionally, in the host, the development of a robust humoral and cellular immune response in persistently infected cattle could interfere with tick fitness and influence vector competition, limiting the ability of ticks to acquire the pathogen [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Understanding these multifaceted factors is crucial for gaining insights into the transmission dynamics of tick-borne pathogens and their interactions with hosts.…”

Anaplasma marginale: Diversity, Virulence, and Vaccine Landscape through a Genomics Approach

“…The low pathogenic Brazilian strain UFMG1 has been shown to protect cattle against a high pathogenic Brazilian isolate (UFMG2) [58]; however, this protection was not observed when the geographically distant Israeli A. marginale Gonen strain was used to challenge cattle inoculated with UFMG1 [59]. With these results, it is clear that UFMG1 had a negligible effect on disease prevention caused by the geographically distant heterologous Gonen strain and this response may be constrained by limited antibody responses.…”

Bovine Anaplasmosis: Will there ever be an almighty effective vaccine?

“…One of the earliest efforts (53) used the Florida strain. Further efforts using local strains have been reported in Australia, Mexico, Brazil, to mention a few (58)(59)(60)(61). All these efforts have one thing in common: fresh or frozen infected erythrocytes were inoculated to induce a mild clinical syndrome (premunition).…”