Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:24:35.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of different routes of inoculation of cattle for detection of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. M. Henderson
W. M. Henderson
Affiliation:
Research Institute (Animal Virus Diseases), Pirbright, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Intradermal inoculation of the tongue, subcutaneous, intracutaneous and intra-venous inoculation were compared in determining the relative facility with which foot-and-mouth disease infection can be produced in cattle.

In seven experiments using six virus strains, least virus was required to infect by the intradermal tongue route, but wide variation was observed between the amount of virus required to infect by this route and by the subcutaneous, intracutaneous or intravenous routes. The smallest difference between tongue and subcutaneous inoculation was not significant, and the largest difference was that 250,000 times more virus was required to infect by the subcutaneous route. The readiness with which infection is produced by routes other than intradermal inoculation of the tongue may be greatly influenced by the strain of virus used.

Intranasal instillation of the virus was also compared with intradermal tongue inoculation. As with subcutaneous inoculation, more virus was required for infection by the intranasal route and, similarly, the results suggest that considerable variation would be found in the amount of different strains required.

A correlation is suggested between this variation and the variation observed in the ‘invasiveness’ of strains in cattle exposed to contact infection.

Attention is drawn to the significance of the observations recorded in this paper in relation to tests of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines for non-infectivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1952 , pp. 182 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

References

REFERENCES

Aramburu, H. G., (1949). A comparison of different methods of inoculating guinea-pigs with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. J. comp. Path. 59, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedson, S. P., Burbury, M., & Maitland, H. B., (1925). 1st Rep. Foot-and-Mouth Dig. Comm., Lond. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Brachmann, , – (1925). Zur Frage der Virulenzbestimmung durch Verdunnung des virushaltigen Materials bei Maul-und Klauenseuche. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wschr. 33, 554.Google Scholar
Brooksby, J. B., (1950). Strains of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease showing natural adaptation to swine. J. Hyg., Oamb., 47, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, I. A., (1950). Observations on immunological and other characteristics of strains of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease with special reference to experimental methods, epizootiology and methods of control, including vaccination. Report submitted to Joint Meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Office international des Epizooties, Paris, 05, 1950.Google Scholar
Henderson, W. M., (1944). A consideration of some of the factors concerned in intracutaneous injection of cattle. J. Path. Bact. 56, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, W. M., (1949). The quantitative study of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Rep. Ser. agric. Res. Goun., Lond., no. 8. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Henderson, W. M., (1952). Significance of tests for non-infectivity of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, W. M., Galloway, I. A. & Brooksby, J. B., (1948). Strains of virus of foot-andmouth disease recovered from outbreaks in Mexico. Pathogenicity and invasiveness. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 69, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, L. T. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Skinner, H. H., (1951). Propagation of strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus in unweaned white mice. Proc. roy. Soc. Med. 44, 1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed