Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:02:14.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swine vesicular disease: comparative studies of viruses isolated from different countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. Burrows ,
J. A. Mann  and
D. Goodridge
R. Burrows
Affiliation:
Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU 24 ON F
J. A. Mann
Affiliation:
Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU 24 ON F
D. Goodridge
Affiliation:
Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU 24 ON F
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.

Seven viruses isolated from outbreaks of swine vesicular disease in various countries between 1966 and 1973 were compared in pigs and infant mice. All produced a similar disease and virus excretion pattern in the pig, although the Italy/66 virus was considerably less virulent than the other viruses. The results of cross neutralization tests of convalescent pig sera and the response of 5-day-old mice to intraperitoneal inoculation indicated minor differences between some viruses. The Italy/66, Hong Kong/71 and France/73 viruses differed from each other and also from the Italy/72, England/72, Austria/73 and Poland/73 group of viruses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1974 , pp. 109 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

REFERENCES

Brown, F., Talbot, P. & Burrows, R. (1973). Antigenic differences between isolates of swine vesicular disease virus and their relationship to Coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, London 245, 315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrows, R. (1966). The infectivity assay of foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs. Journal of Hygiene 64, 419.Google ScholarPubMed
Burrows, R., Greig, A. & Goodridge, D. (1973). Swine vesicular disease. Research in Veterinary Science 15, 141.Google Scholar
Burrows, R., Mann, J. A. & Goodridge, D. (1974). Swine vesicular disease – virological studies of experimental infections produced by the England/72 virus. Journal of Hygiene 72, 135.Google Scholar
De Castro, M. P. (1964). Behaviour of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in cell cultures: susceptibility of the IB-RS-2 cell line. Archivos do Instituto biologico, São Paulo 31, 63.Google Scholar
Dawe, P. S., Forman, A. J. & Smale, C. J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of the swine vesicular disease epidemic in Britain. Nature, London 241, 540.Google Scholar
Federer, K. E., Burrows, R. & Brooksby, J. B. (1967). Vesicular stomatitis virus – the relationship between some strains of the Indiana serotype. Research in Veterinary Science 8, 103.Google Scholar
Kubin, G. (1973). Auftreten der vesikulären Virusseuche der Schweine. Wiener Tierärztliche Monatsschrift 60, 283.Google Scholar
Mowat, G. N., Darbyshire, J. H. & Huntley, J. F. (1972). Differentiation of a vesicular disease of pigs in Hong Kong from foot-and-mouth disease. Veterinary Record, 90, 618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardelli, L., Lodetti, E., Gualandi, G. L., Burrows, R., Goodridge, D., Brown, F. & Cartwright, B. (1968). A foot-and-mouth disease syndrome in pigs caused by an enterovirus. Nature, London 219, 1275.Google Scholar