Comparison of two pseudorabies virus vaccines,that differ in capacity to reduce virus excretion after a challenge infection,in their capacity of reducing transmission of pseudorabies virus |
| |
| Institution: | 1. DLO-Institute of Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands;2. Department of Herd Health and Reproduction, University of Utrecht, P.O. Box 80151, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands;1. School of Chemistry and Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia;2. Centre for Kidney Disease-Venomics Research, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Level 5, 37 Kent Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia;3. The University of Queensland, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia;4. Venom Science Pty Ltd, Tanunda South Australia, 5352, Australia;1. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy;2. Life, Health and Environmental Science Department, L’Aquila University, L’Aquila, Italy;3. Neuropsychology Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy;4. CINECA, Consorzio Universitario, Bologna, Italy;1. Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary;2. Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Hungary;3. Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary;1. Geological Hazard Division, IGME, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, C/ Ríos Rosas 23, Madrid, 28003, Spain;2. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain;3. Departamento de Geología, Museo de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Madrid, Spain;4. Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Potsdam, Germany;5. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Senda del Rey, 9, Madrid, 28040, Spain;6. Departamento de Geología, Universidad de Salamanca, Spain;7. Departamento de Geología y Geoquímica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain;1. Departament of Animal Science, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Padua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil;2. Agroindustrial Productivity Division, Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture (CENA), University of São Paulo, Av. Centenário, 303, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | Pseudorabies virus (PRV) vaccines are often compared for their capacity to reduce virus excretion after a challenge infection. Vaccines, used for the eradication of PRV, however, should reduce transmission of PRV among pigs. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the amount of virus excreted after a challenge infection is an accurate measure of the capacity of a vaccine to reduce transmission of PRV among pigs. Two experiments were carried out, each using two groups of 10 pigs. The pigs in group one were intramuscularly vaccinated once with the glycoprotein E (gE)-negative vaccine X, the pigs in group two with the gE-negative strain 783. Eight weeks later, 5 pigs in each group were inoculated with wild-type PRV. A gE-ELISA was used to detect PRV infection. The transmission of PRV was estimated from the number of contact infections and expressed as the reproduction ratio R. The inoculated pigs vaccinated with vaccine X shed significantly more virus than the inoculated pigs vaccinated with strain 783. However, despite the difference in virus excretion, the transmission of PRV between the two groups did not differ. We conclude that virus excretion is not an accurate measure for determining vaccine effectiveness. However, R of vaccine X (R = 0.98) was not significantly below one, whereas R of vaccine 783 (R = 0) was significantly below one. Consequently, we cannot exclude the possibility that major outbreaks of PRV occur among pigs vaccinated with vaccine X. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
