Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:29:36.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immune response to virus-infection-associated (VIA) antigen in cattle repeatedly vaccinated with foot-and-mouth disease virus inactivated by formalin or acetylethyleneimine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. A. Pinto  and
A. J. M. Garland
A. A. Pinto
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey, England
A. J. M. Garland
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey, England
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.

The results of experiments to investigate antibody to ‘virus infection associated’ (VIA) antigen in cattle repeatedly vaccinated with formalin- or acetylethyleneimine- (AEI) inactivated foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines under laboratory conditions are reported. Results are also presented from some vaccinated animals subsequently exposed to FMD infection.

Antibody against VIA was not detected before and after the first vaccination with formalin or AEI-inactivated vaccine but did develop in all animals after the second formalin vaccination and persisted throughout the experiment. After the second AEI vaccination, 4 of 12 animals developed antibody which persisted for at least 37 days. This transient response in some cattle was repeated after successive vaccinations but, in general, more animals responded as the number of vaccinations increased.

After exposure to infection, a transient VIA antibody response was occasionally observed in immune AEI-vaccinated animals. Some immune repeatedly AEI-vaccinated cattle did not develop detectable VIA antibody after challenge despite the persistence of virus in oesophageal–pharyngeal (O/P) fluid.

The presence of antibody to VIA antigen is not conclusive proof that vaccinated animals have been exposed to infection and field data must be interpreted with caution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 41 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

References

REFERENCES

Brown, F., Hyslop, N. St G., Crick, J. & Morrow, A. W. (1963). The use of acetylethyleneimine in the production of inactivated foot and mouth disease vaccines. Journal of Hygiene 61, 337–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, K. M. & Graves, J. H. (1966). A third antigenic component associated with foot and mouth disease infection. Virology 30, 528–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawe, P. S. & Pinto, A. A. (1978). Antibody response to type specific and ‘virus-infection-associated’ (VIA) antigens in cattle vaccinated with inactivated polyvalent foot and mouth disease virus in Northern Malawi. British Veterinary Journal 134, 504–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellowes, O. N. (1960). Chemical inactivation of FMD virus. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 83, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, A. A, DeMello, P. A., Gomes, I. & Rosenberg, F. (1975). The use of virus infection associated antigen (VIA) in the detection of cattle exposed to foot and mouth disease virus. Boletin Centro Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa, 17–22.Google Scholar
Garland, A. J. M. (1974). The inhibitory activity of secretions in cattle against foot and mouth disease virus. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London.Google Scholar
Golding, S. M., Hedger, R. S., Talbot, P. & Watson, J. (1976). Radial immunodiffusion and serum neutralisation techniques for the assay of antibodies to swine vesicular disease. Research in Veterinary Science 20, 142–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graves, J. H. (1963). Formaldehyde inactivation of FMD virus as applied to vaccine preparation. American Journal of Veterinary Research 24, 1131–6.Google Scholar
Lobo, C. A., Gutierrez, C. A. & Marino, O. C. J. (1974). Evaluation d'anticorps induits par infection par le virus de la Fièvre Aphteuse. I. Préparation de l'antigène VIA et mise en oeuvre dans des épreuves sur le terrain. Bulletin de l'Office International des Epizooties 81, 287–303.Google Scholar
Lobo, C. A., Hanson, R. P., Gutierrez, A. & Beltran, L. E. (1976). Serological detection of natural foot and mouth disease infection in cattle and pigs. Bulletin de l'Office International des Epizooties 85, 1075–1104.Google Scholar
Macpherson, I. A. & Stoker, M. (1962). Polyoma transformation of hamster cell clones – an investigation of genetic factors affecting cell competence. Virology 16, 147–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McVicar, J. W. & Sutmöller, P. (1970). Foot and mouth disease: the agar gel diffusion precipitin test for antibody to virus-infection-associated (VIA) antigen as a tool for epizootiological surveys. American Journal of Epidemiology 92, 273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, A. A. & Hedger, R. S. (1978). The detection of antibody to virus-infection-associated (VIA) antigen in various species of African wildlife following natural and experimental infection with foot and mouth disease virus. Archives of Virology 57, 307–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowlands, D. J., Cartwright, B. & Brown, F. (1969). Evidence for an internal antigen in foot and mouth disease virus. Journal of General Virology 4, 479–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowdon, W. A. (1966). Growth of foot and mouth disease virus in monolayer cultures of calf thyroid cells. Nature, London. 210, 1079–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesslén, T. & Dinter, Z. (1957). Inactivation of foot and mouth disease virus by formalin. Archiv für die gesamte Virusforschung 7 394–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed