Some guidelines for determining foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strain matching by serology

Mattion, Nora; Goris, Nesya; Willems, Tom; Robiolo, Blanca; Maradei, Eduardo; Beascoechea, Claudia Perez; Pérez, Alejandro; Smitsaart, Eliana; Fondevila, Norberto; Palma, Eduardo L.; Clercq, Kris De; Torre, J.L. La

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.11.026

Cited by 37 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The efficacy of FMD vaccine in buffalo was also studied by simulating a direct contact challenge experiment as knowledge of vaccine efficacy is limited in buffalo and assumptions have been made from cattle studies. [11]; and was isolated from epithelial tissue of a suspected FMD case in a non-vaccinated buffalo from Sirsa District, Haryana State.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus from experimentally infected Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) to in-contact naïve and vaccinated Indian buffalo and cattle

Madhanmohan

Sambandam

Singanallur

et al. 2014

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) from experimentally infected Indian buffalo to in-contact naïve and vaccinated cattle and buffalo. In each of six rooms, two donor buffalo that had been inoculated with FMDV were housed for five days with four recipient animals, comprising one vaccinated buffalo, one vaccinated calf, one unvaccinated buffalo and one unvaccinated calf. Vaccination was carried out with current Indian vaccine strain (O/IND/R2/75) and challenged on 28 days post-vaccination with an antigenically similar strain (O/HAS/34/05). All 12 donor buffalo and the six unvaccinated cattle and six unvaccinated calves developed clinical signs of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). In contrast, all six vaccinated cattle (100%) and four out of six vaccinated buffalo (66.6%) were protected from disease but all became infected with FMDV. This confirms that buffalo have the potential to spread FMD by direct contact and that vaccination can block this spread. The numbers of animals in the study were too small to determine if the differences in clinical protection afforded by vaccination of cattle and buffalo are significant and warrant a different dose regime.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus from experimentally infected Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) to in-contact naïve and vaccinated Indian buffalo and cattle

Madhanmohan

Sambandam

Singanallur

et al. 2014

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such serological tests, the antibody titers of serum samples collected from vaccinated animals against both the vaccine strain and field strain virus are determined (6,10). The value that is used the most to express antigenic match is the relationship coefficient (r 1 value), which is the ratio of the titers obtained in serological tests using the heterologous (field) strains and the vaccine strain (7,(10)(11)(12).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Test Methodologies for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Serotype A Vaccine Matching

Tekleghiorghis¹,

Weerdmeester²,

Hemert-Kluitenberg³

et al. 2014

Clin. Vaccine Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination has been one of the most important interventions in disease prevention and control. The impact of vaccination largely depends on the quality and suitability of the chosen vaccine. To determine the suitability of a vaccine strain, antigenic matching is usually studied by in vitro analysis. In this study, we performed three in vitro test methods to determine which one gives the lowest variability and the highest discriminatory capacity. Binary ethylenimine inactivated vaccines, prepared from 10 different foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus serotype A strains, were used to vaccinate cattle (5 animals for each strain). The antibody titers in blood serum samples 3 weeks postvaccination (w.p.v.) were determined by a virus neutralization test, neutralization index test, and liquid-phase blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The titers were then used to calculate relationship coefficient (r 1 ) values. These r 1 values were compared to the genetic lineage using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In the two neutralization test methods, the median titers observed against the test strains differed considerably, and the sera of the vaccinated animals did not always show the highest titers against their respective homologous virus strains. When the titers were corrected for test strain effect (scaling), the variability (standard error of the mean per vaccinated group) increased because the results were on a different scale, but the discriminatory capacity improved. An ROC analysis of the r 1 value calculated on both observed and scaled titers showed that only r 1 values of the liquid-phase blocking ELISA gave a consistent statistically significant result. Under the conditions of the present study, the liquid-phase blocking ELISA showed less variation and still had a higher discriminatory capacity than the other tests.

show abstract

“…Although the 2D-VNT has been considered the gold standard, significant variation has been described with the VNT results [6,22]. Mattion [9] indicated that r 1 value estimations using low serum titer become less precise. Therefore depending on only a single test for vaccine matching may not be suitable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, methods for vaccine strain selection mainly rely on two in vitro indirect serological methods: (a) virus neutralisation test (VNT) using vaccine strain-specific serum pool [6] and (b) an ELISA using polyclonal antibodies [7]. VNT is more relevant to in vivo protection than other measures [8] and seems to produce the most reproducible inter-laboratory results [9]. Although the neutralisation test has been widely used for many years, it is time consuming and requires live virus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of monoclonal antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O and application in identification of antigenic variation in relation to vaccine strain selection

Yang

Goolia

et al. 2014

Virol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) has severe implications for animal farming which leads to considerable financial losses because of its rapid spread, high morbidity and loss of productivity. For these reasons, the use of vaccine is often favoured to prevent and control FMD. Selection of the proper vaccine is extremely difficult because of the antigenic variation within FMDV serotypes. The aim of the current study was to produce a panel of mAbs and use it for the characterization of new isolates of FMDV serotype O.ResultsA panel of FMDV/O specific mAb was produced. The generated mAbs were then characterized using the peptide array and mAb resistant mutant selection. Seven out of the nine mAbs reacted with five known antigenic sites, thus the other two mAbs against non-neutralizing sites were identified. The mAbs were then evaluated by antigenic ELISA for the detection of forty-six FMDV serotype O isolates representing seven of ten known topotypes. Isolates ECU/4/10 and HKN/2/11 demonstrated the highest antigenic variation compared to the others. Furthermore, the panel of mAbs was used in vaccine matching by antigenic profiling ELISA with O1/Manisa as the reference strain. However, there was no correlation between vaccine matching by antigenic ELISA and the gold standard method, virus neutralisation test (VNT), for the forty-six FMDV/O isolates. Nine isolates had particularly poor correlation with the reference vaccine strain as revealed by the low r1 values in VNT. The amino acid sequences of the outer capsid proteins for these nine isolates were analyzed and compared with the vaccine strain O1/Manisa. The isolate ECU/4/10 displayed three unique amino acid substitutions around the antigenic sites 1, 3 and 4.ConclusionsThe panel of mAbs is useful to monitor the emergence of antigenically different strains and determination of relevant antigenic site differences. However, for vaccine matching VNT remains the preferred method but a combination of VNT, antigenic profiling with a panel of mAbs and genetic sequencing would probably be more ideal for full characterization of any new outbreak isolates as well as for selection of vaccine strains from FMDV antigen banks.

show abstract

Some guidelines for determining foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strain matching by serology

Cited by 37 publications

References 16 publications

Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus from experimentally infected Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) to in-contact naïve and vaccinated Indian buffalo and cattle

Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus from experimentally infected Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) to in-contact naïve and vaccinated Indian buffalo and cattle

Comparison of Test Methodologies for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Serotype A Vaccine Matching

Characterization of monoclonal antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O and application in identification of antigenic variation in relation to vaccine strain selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About