ANTIBODY RESPONSE OF RABBITS TO COMBINED HEMORRHAGIC SEPTICEMIA AND FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS VACCINE

被引:0
|
作者
Altaf, I. [1 ]
Siddique, M. [1 ]
Muhammad, K. [2 ]
Irshad, M. [1 ]
Khan, M. Z. [1 ]
Anjum, A. A. [2 ]
Kamran, M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Agr Faisalabad, Dept Microbiol, Faisalabad, Pakistan
[2] Univ Vet & Anim Sci, Dept Microbiol, Lahore, Pakistan
来源
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL AND PLANT SCIENCES | 2012年 / 22卷 / 02期
关键词
Food and Mouth Disease; Pasteurella multocida; Monovalent; Bivalent; PASTEURELLA-MULTOCIDA; CATTLE; VITRO; SHEEP;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Infectious diseases particularly Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) & Hemorrhagic septicemia (HS) are challenge for livestock and dairy industry all over the world and cause great economic losses. Vaccination programs using monovalent vaccines against the diseases are effective but the repeated vaccination induces stress to the animals and increase cost of vaccination for the farmer. In this study, efficacy of bivalent FMD+HS vaccine was compared to monovalent FMD and HS vaccines in rabbits. Previously isolated and characterized FMD virus "O" serotype and Pasteurella multocida were used in the experimental design. Alum precipitated FMD, HS and FMD+HS vaccines were prepared and injected in experimental rabbits (6 months of age) at 0 and 14th day. The serum samples were collected on 0, 14, 28, 35 and 48 days post-priming. Antibody titer was measured by Virus Neutralization (V/N) for FMD "O" virus and Indirect Hemagglutination (IHA) test for lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of Pasteurella multocida. The results showed that peak level of Geometric mean antibody titer (50.8 VN units & 40.3 IHA units) was obtained on 35th day in both the monovalent FMD and HS vaccine, respectively whereas in bivalent FMD+HS vaccine peak level of GMT antibody titer (161.3 VN units +50.8 IHA units) was detected on 48th days post-priming. It is concluded that combine bivalent vaccine produced better antibody titer that persisted for longer time.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 504
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Combined Adjuvant Formulations Enhanced an Immune Response of Trivalent Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine in Cattle
    Ayele, Getu
    Getachew, Belayneh
    Bari, Fufa Dawo
    Bayissa, Berecha
    Muluneh, Ayelech
    Abayneh, Takele
    Gelaye, Esayas
    Edao, Bedaso Mammo
    VETERINARY MEDICINE-RESEARCH AND REPORTS, 2023, 14 : 47 - 62
  • [22] ANTIBODY RECOGNITION AND NEUTRALIZATION OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH-DISEASE VIRUS
    BROWN, F
    SEMINARS IN VIROLOGY, 1995, 6 (04): : 243 - 248
  • [23] REAGINIC ANTIBODY IN CATTLE HYPERSENSITIZED BY FOOT-AND-MOUTH-DISEASE VACCINE
    BEADLE, GG
    PAY, TWF
    RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 1975, 19 (01) : 1 - 7
  • [24] Improvement of the immune response to foot and mouth disease virus vaccine in calves by using Avridine as adjuvant
    Sadir, AM
    Zamorano, PI
    Romera, A
    Wigdorovitz, A
    Smitsaart, E
    Marangunich, L
    Schiappacassi, C
    Borca, MV
    VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY, 1999, 69 (01) : 11 - 22
  • [25] IMMUNE RESPONSE TO FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
    COWAN, KM
    WAGNER, GG
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 1971, 54 (09) : 1329 - &
  • [26] THE USE OF CULTURE VIRUS IN THE PREPARATION OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VACCINE
    HENDERSON, WM
    GALLOWAY, IA
    JOURNAL OF HYGIENE, 1953, 51 (04) : 546 - 558
  • [27] EVALUATION OF BOVINE ANTIBODY-RESPONSES TO HEMORRHAGIC SEPTICEMIA VACCINE
    JOHNSON, RB
    DAWKINS, HJS
    SPENCER, TL
    SAHAREE, AA
    BAHAMAN, AR
    PATTEN, RBE
    RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 1989, 47 (02) : 277 - 279
  • [28] ANTIBODY RESPONSE OF GOATS TO GEL BASED COMBINED VACCINE AGAINST PESTE DES PETITS RUMINANTS, CONTAGIOUS CAPRINE PLEUROPNEUMONIA AND FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
    Khalil, M.
    Muhammad, K.
    Nazir, J.
    Durrani, A. Z.
    Khan, F. A.
    Sarfaraz, S.
    Riaz, R.
    Zeb, A.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL AND PLANT SCIENCES, 2019, 29 (04): : 1208 - 1212
  • [29] The virus of foot and mouth disease
    Kleine, FK
    LANCET, 1924, 2 : 406 - 406
  • [30] The virus of foot and mouth disease
    不详
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1924, 1924 : 975 - 975