Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:27:35.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypersensitivity in cattle after foot -and -mouth disease vaccination: response to hydroxypropylmethylcellulose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. Black ,
F. J. R. R. Menard ,
G. G. Beadle  and
T. W. F. Pay
L. Black
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, Pirbright, Surrey
F. J. R. R. Menard
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, Pirbright, Surrey
G. G. Beadle
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, Pirbright, Surrey
T. W. F. Pay
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, Pirbright, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Intravenous provocation (IVP) tests demonstrated that hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (MC) was able to elicit anaphylactic signs in cattle vaccinated with foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine produced at one centre but not with similar vaccine produced at another. The former vaccine also provoked serum reagins which were demonstrated by passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) tests in goats.

Reaginic sera which reacted specifically with MC were used in PCA tests to screen samples taken serially from the vaccine production lines. The reactions observed suggested that a substance with MC or similar specificity was present in the antifoaming agent routinely added to vaccines.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 1975 , pp. 79 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Beadle, G. G. (1971). Allergy problems with foot and mouth disease vaccine. M.V.Sc. Thesis. University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. G. & Pay, T. W. F. (1975). Immediate-type hypersensitivity in cattle produced by foot and mouth disease vaccines. Demonstration of reaginic antibody. Research in Veterinary Science 19, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L. & Pay, T. W. F. (1975). The evaluation of hypersensitivity tests in cattle after foot and mouth disease vaccination. Journal of Hygiene 74, 169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capstick, P. B., Pay, T. W. F., Beadle, G. G., Bandau, R. & Boge, A. (1970). Some studies on allergic reactions to foot and mouth disease vaccine in Lower Saxony, Germany. European Commission for the Control of Foot and Mouth Disease. Report of the Meeting of the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee. Brescia, Italy. 1969. FAO. Rome.Google Scholar
Eyal, J. & Mayer, E. (1971). Hypersensitivity in Israeli-Friesian cattle following foot and mouth disease vaccination. Refuah Veterinarith 28, 62.Google Scholar
Huenermund, G. (1974). Allergie im Anschluss an MKS-Vakzination in Kenia. Tierärztliche Umschau 29, 278.Google Scholar
Leeman, W.de, Weck, A. L. & Schneider, C. H. (1969). Hypersensitivity to carboxymethyl-cellulose as a cause of anaphylactic reactions to drugs in cattle. Nature, London 223, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacPherson, I. A. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1962). Polyoma transformation of hamster cell clones – an investigation of genetic factors affecting cell competence. Virology 16, 147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, E. & Eyal, J. (1972). Failure of cellulose and some of its derivatives to act as allergens in cattle sensitised to carboxymethylcellulose. Refuah Veterinarith 29, 65.Google Scholar
Mayr, A., Ringseisen, J., Baljer, G., Bibrack, B., Wallner, J. & Zimmer, H. (1969). Untersuchungen über Art, Umfang und Ursachen von Impfschaden nach der Maul- und Klauenseuche-Schutzimpfung in Bayern in den Jahren 1967/68. Zentralblatt für Veterinärmedizin 16, 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollister, D. D. & Oyen, F. (1954). Dietary feeding of a new methylcellulose preparation to rats. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association, Scientific edition 43, 664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platt, D., Bicanovsky, J. E., Dallow, M. H. & Thonard, J. C. (1966). Antigenicity of a carboxymethylcellulose bovine serum albumen glycoprotein in conventional and germ-free mice. Nature, London 209, 214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Straub, R., Lazary, S., Gerber, H. de, Weck, A. L., Schatzmann, U. & Pauli, B. (1972). Sensibilisierungsversuche mit Dexamethason und Carboxymethylcellulose beim Pferd. Schweizer Archiv Tierheilkunde 114, 439.Google Scholar
Telling, R. C., Capstick, P. B., Pay, T. W. F., Menard, F. J. R. R.Bandau, R. & Campos Onetti, R. C. (1972). The large scale manufacture of FMD vaccine by the BHK cell deep suspension culture. In International Virology 2, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Virology, (ed. Melnick, J. L.), p. 153. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Telling, R. C. & Elsworth, R. (1965). Submerged culture of hamster kidney cells in stainless steel vessels. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 7, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telling, R. C. & Stone, C. J. (1964). A method of automatic pH control of a bicarbonate –CO2 buffer system for the submerged culture of hamster kidney cells. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 6, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar