Literature DB >> 18835312

Updating of the correlation between lpELISA titers and protection from virus challenge for the assessment of the potency of polyvalent aphtovirus vaccines in Argentina.

Eduardo Maradei1, José La Torre, Blanca Robiolo, Jorge Esteves, Cristina Seki, Andrea Pedemonte, Marcela Iglesias, Ricardo D'Aloia, Nora Mattion.   

Abstract

Routine vaccination campaigns are carried out in Argentina twice a year, involving more than 100 million doses of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine. Although the challenge test in cattle has not been totally replaced for the assessment of FMD vaccine potency, Argentine Animal Health authorities have used an indirect alternative method based on specific correlation studies of protection against podal generalization (PPG) tests performed in cattle with a validated liquid phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The change of vaccine formulations that took place after the 2000-2001 outbreaks, generated a gap in the correlation between lpELISA titers and PPG for the new FMD virus strains. A reappraisal of the correlation between lpELISA titers measured at 60 dpv and virus challenge by the PPG method at 90 dpv, performed for the four virus strains presently included in the Argentine vaccine is presented in this work. The data were obtained from 40 bovine challenge trials (647 sera) performed using exclusive batches of commercial vaccine from the year 2001 to January 2008 for A24/Cruzeiro, A/Argentina/2001, O1/Campos and C3/Indaial FMD virus strains. Curves of percentage of expected protection (EPP) versus lpELISA titers were obtained by logit regression for A/Argentina/2001, O1/Campos and C3/Indaial strains, but not for A24/Cruzeiro strain. The concordance between the direct and indirect tests using an EPP cut off value of 75% (82%, kappa = 0.62), in agreement with data originating from many years of vaccine control in Argentina, remarks the relevance of the acceptance of indirect alternatives to in vivo potency testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18835312     DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.09.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  13 in total

1.  Systemic Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccination in Cattle Promotes Specific Antibody-Secreting Cells at the Respiratory Tract and Triggers Local Anamnestic Responses upon Aerosol Infection.

Authors:  J Pega; S Di Giacomo; D Bucafusco; J M Schammas; D Malacari; F Barrionuevo; A V Capozzo; L L Rodríguez; M V Borca; M Pérez-Filgueira
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 5.103

2.  Comparison of test methodologies for foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype A vaccine matching.

Authors:  Tesfaalem Tekleghiorghis; Klaas Weerdmeester; Froukje van Hemert-Kluitenberg; Rob J M Moormann; Aldo Dekker
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2014-03-12

3.  Implication of Broadly Neutralizing Bovine Monoclonal Antibodies in the Development of an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Detecting Neutralizing Antibodies against Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Serotype O.

Authors:  Yimei Cao; Kun Li; Sheng Wang; Yuanfang Fu; Pu Sun; Pinghua Li; Xingwen Bai; Jing Zhang; Xueqing Ma; Xiangchuan Xing; Shasha Zhou; Huifang Bao; Dong Li; Yingli Chen; Zhiyong Li; Zengjun Lu; Zaixin Liu
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Development of an Indirect Chemiluminescence Immunoassay Using a Multiepitope Recombinant Protein To Specifically Detect Antibodies against Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Serotype O in Swine.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Junjun Shao; Guanglei Zhang; Yanyan Chang; Sudan Ge; Yue Sun; Zhan Gao; Huiyun Chang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Evaluation of serological response to foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in BLV infected cows.

Authors:  Rodrigo Puentes; Laureana De Brun; Agustina Algorta; Valeria Da Silva; Florencia Mansilla; Gustavo Sacco; Silvia Llambí; Alejandra V Capozzo
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Mass vaccination, immunity and coverage: modelling population protection against foot-and-mouth disease in Turkish cattle.

Authors:  T J D Knight-Jones; S Gubbins; A N Bulut; K D C Stärk; D U Pfeiffer; K J Sumption; D J Paton
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Dendrimeric peptides can confer protection against foot-and-mouth disease virus in cattle.

Authors:  Ivana Soria; Valeria Quattrocchi; Cecilia Langellotti; Mariela Gammella; Sebastian Digiacomo; Beatriz Garcia de la Torre; David Andreu; Maria Montoya; Francisco Sobrino; Esther Blanco; Patricia Zamorano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Experimental infections using the foot-and-mouth disease virus O/JPN/2010 in animals administered a vaccine preserved for emergency use in Japan.

Authors:  Katsuhiko Fukai; Tatsuya Nishi; Nobuaki Shimada; Kazuki Morioka; Manabu Yamada; Kazuo Yoshida; Kenichi Sakamoto; Rie Kitano; Reiko Yamazoe; Makoto Yamakawa
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 1.267

9.  Induction of protective immune response against both PPRV and FMDV by a novel recombinant PPRV expressing FMDV VP1.

Authors:  Chunsheng Yin; Weiye Chen; Qianqian Hu; Zhiyuan Wen; Xijun Wang; Jinying Ge; Qianqian Yin; Haibing Zhi; Chun Xia; Zhigao Bu
Journal:  Vet Res       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 3.683

10.  Quantitative Detection of the Foot-And-Mouth Disease Virus Serotype O 146S Antigen for Vaccine Production Using a Double-Antibody Sandwich ELISA and Nonlinear Standard Curves.

Authors:  Xia Feng; Jun-Wu Ma; Shi-Qi Sun; Hui-Chen Guo; Ya-Min Yang; Ye Jin; Guang-Qing Zhou; Ji-Jun He; Jian-Hong Guo; Shu-yun Qi; Mi Lin; Hu Cai; Xiang-Tao Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.