Transmission of Foot-and-mouth Disease in Rodents by Contact

Beattie, James; Morcos, Zaki; Peden, David B.

doi:10.1016/s0368-1742(28)80036-1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the demonstration of susceptibility in non-ungulate species, a number of studies were performed to determine the potential role of rats, mice, rabbits and birds in FMD epidemiology. These animals can be experimentally infected following parenteral challenge, with secondary mouth or foot lesions reported in rats, rabbits and chickens (Arkwright & Burbury, 1925; Beattie et al , 1928; Bedson et al , 1927; Skinner, 1954). Contact infection was only demonstrated in rabbits, and it is probable infection occurred through existing skin abrasions (Beattie et al , 1928).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These animals can be experimentally infected following parenteral challenge, with secondary mouth or foot lesions reported in rats, rabbits and chickens (Arkwright & Burbury, 1925; Beattie et al , 1928; Bedson et al , 1927; Skinner, 1954). Contact infection was only demonstrated in rabbits, and it is probable infection occurred through existing skin abrasions (Beattie et al , 1928). Therefore, depending on their susceptibility to infection, animals can be divided into three categories: (i) animals susceptible to FMDV infection which play a role in the natural epidemiology of the disease, like cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and African buffalo, (ii) animals susceptible to FMDV infection that can play a role in the epidemiology but only under some circumstances (for example capybaras, deer, camels and a number of other animal species in the order Artiodactyla) or (iii) animals susceptible to infection only under experimental conditions that do not play a role in the epidemiology of the disease; mice, guinea pigs and rabbits belong to the last category (Alexandersen & Mowat, 2005; Gomes & Rosenberg, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laboratory animal models to study foot-and-mouth disease: a review with emphasis on natural and vaccine-induced immunity

Habiela

Seago

Pérez-Martín

et al. 2014

Journal of General Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory animal models have provided valuable insight into foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) pathogenesis in epidemiologically important target species. While not perfect, these models have delivered an accelerated time frame to characterize the immune responses in natural hosts and a platform to evaluate therapeutics and vaccine candidates at a reduced cost. Further expansion of these models in mice has allowed access to genetic mutations not available for target species, providing a powerful and versatile experimental system to interrogate the immune response to FMDV and to target more expensive studies in natural hosts. The purpose of this review is to describe commonly used FMDV infection models in laboratory animals and to cite examples of when these models have failed or successfully provided insight relevant for target species, with an emphasis on natural and vaccine-induced immunity. IntroductionFoot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV: family Picornaviridae; genus Aphthovirus) is known to naturally infect a wide variety of cloven-hoofed domesticated and wild animal species, causing an acute disease characterized by vesicular lesions of the tongue, snout, buccal cavity, feet and teats (Grubman & Baxt, 2004). Despite causing extensive lesions, the cycle of infection in the individual animal is short, and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) usually resolves without the need for treatment and is seldom lethal in adults (Arzt et al., 2011b). However, the highly contagious nature, wide dissemination and significant economic impact of FMD have made it one of the most feared livestock diseases and a major research focus for more than a century. Progress towards the development of effective tools for FMD control has been hampered by several factors including the cost and logistics of largeanimal experimentation in specialized high-containment facilities, incomplete knowledge of the host's immune systems and lack of immunological reagents compared to biomedical rodent species and humans. These factors delayed the production of vaccines on an industrial scale and this major research goal was subsequently only achieved in the 1950s (Lombard et al., 2007). In a review, Brown (2003) highlighted that this milestone could not have been achieved without certain significant advances in our knowledge of FMD. The first significant advance was the demonstration by Loeffler & Frosch (1897) that the disease was caused by a virus and the second was the establishment of FMD laboratory animal models, including the guinea-pig model (Waldman & Pape, 1920) followed by the suckling mouse model (Skinner, 1951). Although not without their flaws, these FMD laboratory animal models have helped elucidate several mechanisms of FMD pathogenesis, which would have been difficult to achieve directly in target species. These models have provided an accelerated time frame at significantly reduced costs to develop and test vaccine candidates and continue to be a useful tool for interrogating FMDV immune responses. However, we now know that porcine and ru...

show abstract