Lameness in rams following vaccination against Brucella ovis infection

Extract

Since the introduction in 1957 of a vaccination procedure to control Brucella ovis infection in sheep, many thousands of rams have been vaccinated annually throughout New Zealand almost without complications.     

Histopathology of experimental brucellosis in rams following vaccination with Brucella ovis

Lesions induced by inoculation of Brucella ovis into the epididymis were compared in rams previously vaccinated with B. ovis bacterin and unvaccinated rams. Inoculation of killed B. ovis did not produce significant lesions in either group whereas prior vaccination exacerbated epididymal lesions following inoculation of live B. ovis. Increased numbers of neutrophils, macrophages and lymphocytes were present in the interstitium and neutrophilic infiltration of the epididymal duct epithelium and intraepithelial cyst formation was more prominent. The inflammatory response surrounding extravasated spermatozoa was more severe in vaccinated rams but it was not determined if the response was directed at spermatozoa or intermixed brucellae, or both.     

Brucella ovis vaccination of rams

Abstract

Extract

An infectious epididymitis of rams caused by Brucella ovis (Buddie, 1956 Buddle, M. B. 1956. J. Hygiene, 54: 351–351.  [Google Scholar]) infection, first described in Australia (Simmons and Boyes, 1953 Simmons, C. G. and Hall, W. J. K. 1953. Aust.vet.J., 29: 33–33. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and New Zealand (Buddie and Boyes, 1953 Buddle, M. B. and Boyes, B. W. 1953. Aust.vet. J., 29: 145–145. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) was recognized subsequently in Czechoslovakia (Gdovin et al, 1955 Gdovin, T., Hrudka, F., Chladecky, E. and Koppel, Z. 1955. Shorn, ces. Akad. zemedelsk Ved., 28: 617–617.  [Google Scholar]), the United States (McGowan and Shultz, 1956 McGowan, B. and Shultz, G. 1956. Cornel Vet., 46: 277–277.  [Google Scholar]), South Africa (Van Rensburg et al, 1958 Van Rensburg, S. W. J., Van Heerden, K. M., Le Roux, D. J. and Snyders, A. J. 1958. J.S.Afr. vet. med. Ass., 29: 223–223.  [Google Scholar]), Rumania (Tudoriu, et al, 1958 Tudoriu, C. D., Andrei, M., Draghici, D. and Moldoveanu, P. 1958. Anu. Inst. Pat.Igien. anim. Bucaresti, 8: 5–5.  [Google Scholar]), and South America (Dr Justo Zomara B, 1961, pers. comm.). As the infection can affect ram fertility and, further, can be responsible for abortion in ewes and perinatal mortality in lambs, attention has been directed to the development, evaluation, and application of control measures in a number of important sheep-raising countries.     

The serological response of rams to four methods of vaccination against Brucella ovis infection

A comparative study was made of the serological response of rams to an inactivated Brucella ovis saline in-oil vaccine administered either once or twice by either the subcutaneous or the intraperitoneal route. The serological response of rams to two spaced doses of vaccine was more consistent and more persistent than when a single dose of vaccine was used. The rise in titre was more rapid and the final titre of greater magnitude when the subcutaneous route of administration was used in comparison with the intraperitoneal route. On a serological basis, the most satisfactory vaccination technique investigated consisted of two subcutaneous injections of vaccine administered ten weeks apart. The least satisfactory technique was a single intraperitoneal injection.     

The response of vaccinated rams to experimental challenge using Brucella ovis

One hundred and thirty eight rams were allocated to four experimental groups. An inactivated Br. ovis vaccine was administered either once by the intraperitoneal route (1 i/p), twice by the intraperitoneal route (2 i/p), or twice by the subcutaneous route (2 s/c), and the last group was left unvaccinated. They were then challenged by the intravenous inoculation of between 123 and 1.23 × 10⁸ live Br. ovis bacteria. The number of rams that succumbed to infection within the four groups was 4/35 (11%) for the 2 s/c, 7/33 (21%) for the 2 i/p, 9/35 (26%) for the 1 i/p and 18/35 (51%) for the unvaccinated rams. Vaccination reduced the number of rams that succumbed to experimental challenge and although there were differences between the vaccinated groups, these were not statistically significant.

Following challenge, unvaccinated rams were the first to excrete Br. ovis in their semen; three weeks following inoculation. Next, those vaccinated by either one or two doses by the intraperitoneal technique began to excrete the organism (five weeks) and then finally those rams vaccinated twice by the subcutaneous route (seven weeks).     

The response of vaccinated rams to experimental challenge using Brucella ovis

One hundred and thirty eight rams were allocated to four experimental groups. An inactivated Br. ovis vaccine was administered either once by the intraperitoneal route (1 i/p), twice by the intraperitoneal route (2 i/p), or twice by the subcutaneous route (2 s/c), and the last group was left unvaccinated. They were then challenged by the intravenous inoculation of between 123 and 1.23 x 108 live Br. ovis bacteria. The number of rams that succumbed to infection within the four groups was 4135 (11%) for the 2 s/c, 7133 (21%) for the 2 i/p, 9135 (26%) for the 1 i/p and 18135 (51%) for the unvaccinated rams. Vaccination reduced the number of rams that succumbed to experimental challenge and although there were differences between the vaccinated groups, these were not statistically significant. Following challenge, unvaccinated rams were the first to excrete Br. ovis in their semen three weeks following inoculation. Next, those vaccinated by either one or two doses by the intraperitoneal technique began to excrete the organism (five weeks) and then finally those rams vaccinated twice by the subcutaneous route (seven weeks).     

The detection of Brucella ovis infection in rams

Abstract

Extract

Each year in New Zealand, many rams are palpated for lesions of the epididymes and testes. Although regarded initially as a method of detecting infertile rams (Crawford and James, 1950 Biberstein, E. L. and McGowan, B. 1958. Cornell Vet., 48: 31–31.  [Google Scholar]), the technique is now regarded primarily as a method of detecting infection with the organism for which Buddie (1956 Buddle, M. B. 1956. J.Hyg., 54: 351–351.  [Google Scholar]) proposed the name Brucella ovis.     

The persistence of antibodies against Brucella ovis and Brucella abortus in rams following vaccination: A field study

Primary hypoparathyroidism was diagnosed in three St. Bernard bitches. Anorexia, behavioural changes, muscle tremors, seizures, panting respiration, and cataracts were the clinical signs observed. The serum concentration of calcium was low, the phosphorus concentration elevated, and the immunoreactive parathyroid hormone level low in all dogs.

The aetiology of the hypoparathyroidism was not determined in any of the dogs. Treatment with synthetic vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol) and an oral calcium supplement was successful in restoring and then maintaining a normal concentration of serum calcium in two of the dogs.     

Production of immunity in rams against Brucella ovis infection

Extract

During earlier investigations in New Zealand into the bacterial and mycotic flora of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus), strains of Salmonella typhimurium were obtained from the gut of a number of animals. It was therefore decided to examine these animals more thoroughly for the presence of salmonellae. This paper embodies the results of a small survey subsequently carried out in the Hamilton suburban area during February, 1964.     

Immunization with Brucella melitensis Rev 1 against Brucella ovis infection of rams

The efficacy of Brucella Melitensis Rev 1 vaccine (Rev 1) for the prophylaxis of Brucella ovis ram epididymitis was evaluated. Twenty-nine 3-month-old rams were vaccinated with 2 X 10(9) Rev 1 and 14 were revaccinated with 5 X 10(8) at 14 months of age. Six rams remained unvaccinated as a control group. All rams were challenged with 5 X 10(8) B. ovis at 21 months of age. Before being slaughtered 8 weeks later, only one vaccinated ram developed epididymitis while four of the six control rams developed testicular alterations. Genital and selected extragenital organs and lymph nodes were removed at slaughter and inoculated on selective media. B. ovis was isolated from 26.6% of the vaccinated rams, 21.4% of the revaccinated rams and 100% of control rams. Portions of epididymis, testes and vesicular glands were also used for pathological studies. More severe lesions were observed in control rams than in vaccinated ones. In conclusion, these results show that vaccination of young lambs, followed or not by revaccination, is a suitable method for the prophylaxis of B. ovis infection of rams.     

Immune response in rams experimentally infected with Brucella ovis

Cellular as well as humoral immune responses were detected in six rams experimentally infected with Brucella ovis. Specific antibodies were detectable by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by day 11 after infection in all the rams. The levels of IgM antibodies and total antibodies in the serum rose until 33 and 41 days after infection respectively, then levelled off. Antigen-induced blastogenic responses by lymphocytes developed as early as five days after infection in all rams but had decreased to low levels by day 63 in most. Blastogenesis induced by phytohaemagglutinin and concanavalin A varied among infected rams and did not differ significantly (P greater than 0.05) from control rams. All rams had developed delayed-type skin hypersensitivity by day 63 after infection. One ram which did not become infected as a result of exposure had low levels of B ovis serum antibodies and a detectable antigen-induced lymphocyte blastogenic response before infection, suggesting the involvement of cell-mediated immunity in protection against B ovis.     

Lack of evidence of Brucella ovis infection in rams in Quebec

A study was conducted to estimate the seroprevalence of Brucella ovis infection in rams in the Estrie and Bas-Saint-Laurent regions (Quebec). Rams sera (n = 258) were serologically evaluated from 224 rams in 30 commercial flocks and from 34 rams at 2 slaughterhouses by using an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Epididymides and testes were examined by palpation on farms and microscopically for culled rams. No ram was seropositive to Brucella ovis or had lesions suggestive of brucellosis from the farm or slaughterhouse surveys.     

Comparison of subcutaneous and conjunctival routes of Rev 1 vaccination for the prophylaxis of Brucella ovis infection in rams

The serological response and protection conferred against Brucella ovis by the Rev 1 vaccine was evaluated in both adult (experiment 1) and young rams (experiment 2) vaccinated either subcutaneously or conjunctivally. In experiment 1 the Rev 1 vaccine protected 55.5 per cent and 100 per cent, respectively, of subcutaneously and conjunctivally vaccinated rams against three consecutive challenges that infected 100 per cent of unvaccinated controls. In experiment 2, Rev 1 protected 100 per cent of rams vaccinated subcutaneously and 70 per cent of those vaccinated conjunctivally against a challenge dose able to infect all the unvaccinated controls. The serological response after vaccination was significantly lower in rams vaccinated conjunctivally than in those vaccinated subcutaneously.     

Transmission of Brucella ovis from rams to red deer stags

AIM: To determine whether B. ovis will transmit from infected rams to non-infected red deer stags (Cervus elaphus) grazing together in the same paddock. METHODS: Six rams artificially infected with B. ovis were grazed with six non-infected 14-month-old red deer stags for a four and a half month period from March 4 to July 20, 1999. Stags were blood sampled at one- to six-weekly intervals to test for B. ovis antibodies using a complement fixation test. Stags that seroconverted were semen sampled to test for B. ovis infection by bacteriological culture. RESULTS: Between day 92 and day 124 of grazing together (June 4 and July 6), sera from five of the six stags became positive in the B. ovis complement fixation test. B. ovis was cultured from semen samples from four of the seropositive stags. CONCLUSIONS: Brucella ovis can be transmitted from infected rams to non-infected stags grazing in the same paddock, suggesting that B. ovis infection in farmed deer in New Zealand initially came from infected rams. Whether transmission occurs from direct contact between rams or stags, or indirectly by environmental contamination needs to be established.     

The complement fixation test for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis infection in rams

Complement fixation tests using three B. ovis antigen preparations in warm fixation tests (WCFT) and cold fixation (CCFT) tests were done on 541 ram sera. Semen samples from the same rams were examined culturally to identify B. ovis excretors. The CCFT, using an antigen prepared by heat extraction of B.ovis cells, had a sensitivity of 97% in 124 rams which were shedding B.ovis. The specificity was 99% in 144 rams from non-infected flocks. Seventy-seven per cent of 156 rams which reacted to this test were shedding B. ovis in their semen. Tests with other antigens were inferior in sensitivity and/or specificity. The WCFT gave lower titres than CCFT. Vaccination caused large numbers of false positive reactions in 4 flocks.