| Literature DB >> 24638139 |
Vinícius Silva Machado1, Marcela Luccas de Souza Bicalho1, Enoch Brandão de Souza Meira Junior1, Rodolfo Rossi1, Bruno Leonardo Ribeiro1, Svetlana Lima1, Thiago Santos1, Arieli Kussler1, Carla Foditsch1, Erika Korzune Ganda1, Georgios Oikonomou1, Soon Hon Cheong1, Robert Owen Gilbert1, Rodrigo Carvalho Bicalho1.
Abstract
In this study we evaluate the efficacy of five vaccine formulations containing different combinations of proteins (FimH; leukotoxin, LKT; and pyolysin, PLO) and/or inactivated whole cells (Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium necrophorum, and Trueperella pyogenes) in preventing postpartum uterine diseases. Inactivated whole cells were produced using two genetically distinct strains of each bacterial species (E. coli, F. necrophorum, and T. pyogenes). FimH and PLO subunits were produced using recombinant protein expression, and LKT was recovered from culturing a wild F. necrophorum strain. Three subcutaneous vaccines were formulated: Vaccine 1 was composed of inactivated bacterial whole cells and proteins; Vaccine 2 was composed of proteins only; and Vaccine 3 was composed of inactivated bacterial whole cells only. Two intravaginal vaccines were formulated: Vaccine 4 was composed of inactivated bacterial whole cells and proteins; and Vaccine 5 was composed of PLO and LKT. To evaluate vaccine efficacy, a randomized clinical trial was conducted at a commercial dairy farm; 371 spring heifers were allocated randomly into one of six different treatments groups: control, Vaccine 1, Vaccine 2, Vaccine 3, Vaccine 4 and Vaccine 5. Late pregnant heifers assigned to one of the vaccine groups were each vaccinated twice: at 230 and 260 days of pregnancy. When vaccines were evaluated grouped as subcutaneous and intravaginal, the subcutaneous ones were found to significantly reduce the incidence of puerperal metritis. Additionally, subcutaneous vaccination significantly reduced rectal temperature at 6±1 days in milk. Reproduction was improved for cows that received subcutaneous vaccines. In general, vaccination induced a significant increase in serum IgG titers against all antigens, with subcutaneous vaccination again being more effective. In conclusion, subcutaneous vaccination with inactivated bacterial components and/or protein subunits of E. coli, F. necrophorum and T. pyogenes can prevent puerperal metritis during the first lactation of dairy cows, leading to improved reproduction.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24638139 PMCID: PMC3956715 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive statistics of treatment groups.
| Control | Vaccine 1 | Vaccine 2 | Vaccine 3 | Vaccine 4 | Vaccine 5 | |
| Average age (days) at enrollment (± SE) | 664 (3.72) | 655 (5.2) | 665 (5.24) | 669 (5.24) | 666 (5.24) | 668 (5.24) |
| Average body condition score at enrollment (± SE) | 3.71 (0.03) | 3.76 (0.05) | 3.74 (0.05) | 3.65 (0.05) | 3.72 (0.05) | 3.66 (0.05) |
| Average body condition score at 6±1 (± SE) | 3.5 (0.02) | 3.49 (0.03) | 3.52 (0.03) | 3.49 (0.03) | 3.44 (0.03) | 3.50 (0.03) |
| Average days of gestation at enrollment (± SE) | 230 (0.21) | 230 (0.29) | 230 (0.29) | 230 (0.29) | 230 (0.29) | 230 (0.29) |
| Total enrolled animals (%) | 105 (28.3) | 54 (14.5) | 53 (14.3) | 53 (14.3) | 53 (14.3) | 53 (14.3) |
Effects of different vaccine formulations on incidence of researcher diagnosed puerperal metritis.
| Model and variables | Puerperal metritis incidence (%) | Coefficients (SE) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Individual | Overall |
|
| |||||
| Control | 12.1 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Vaccine 1 | 6.2 | −0.14 (0.56) | 0.44 (0.11–1.67) | 0.226 | |
| Vaccine 2 | 4.1 | −0.73 (0.65) | 0.24 (0.05–1.17) | 0.078 | |
| Vaccine 3 | 2.0 | −1.32 (0.87) | 0.13 (0.02–1.08) | 0.060 | 0.153 |
| Vaccine 4 | 13.5 | 0.68 (0.43) | 0.99 (0.35–2.78) | 0.989 | |
| Vaccine 5 | 14.0 | 0.80 (0.43) | 1.12 (0.40–3.12) | 0.832 | |
| Intercept | −2.15 (0.27) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Control | 12.1 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Subcutaneous | 4.1 | −0.90 (0.32) | 0.27 (0.09–0.75) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Intravaginal | 13.7 | 0.47 (0.26) | 1.05 (0.45–2.46) | 0.905 | |
| Intercept | −1.88 (0.22) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Control | 12.1 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Vaccine 1 & 2 | 5.1 | −1.12 (0.57) | 0.32 (0.10–1.01) | 0.051 | |
| Vaccine 1 & 3 | 4.1 | −1.42 (0.67) | 0.24 (0.06–0.91) | 0.035 |
Vaccines were evaluated separately in Model 1, and grouped in Model 2. Age in days, dystocia, and body condition score at enrollment were offered to both models.
Effects of different vaccine formulations on incidence of farm diagnosed puerperal metritis.
| Model and variables | Puerperal metritis incidence (%) | Coefficients (SE) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Individual | Overall |
|
| |||||
| Control | 27.6 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Vaccine 1 | 11.1 | −0.73 (0.38) | 0.31 (0.12–0.82) | 0.019 | |
| Vaccine 2 | 17.0 | −0.29 (0.33) | 0.49 (0.21–1.14) | 0.100 | |
| Vaccine 3 | 20.7 | −0.01 (0.31)- | 0.65 (0.29–1.45) | 0.297 | 0.056 |
| Vaccine 4 | 34.0 | 0.67 (0.28) | 1.27 (0.62–2.62) | 0.504 | |
| Vaccine 5 | 19.2 | −0.08 (0.32) | 0.60 (0.27–1.37) | 0.226 | |
| Intercept | −1.06 (0.18) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Control | 27.6 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Subcutaneous | 16.2 | −0.46 (0.18) | 0.48 (0.26–0.88) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Intravaginal | 26.7 | 0.18 (0.18) | 0.91 (0.49–1.68) | 0.766 | |
| Intercept | −0.91 (0.17) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Control | 27.6 | Ref. | baseline | ||
| Vaccine 1 & 2 | 14.0 | −0.93 (0.36) | 0.39 (0.19–0.80) | 0.010 | |
| Vaccine 1 & 3 | 15.9 | −0.35 (0.35) | 0.45 (0.22–0.91) | 0.026 |
Vaccines were evaluated separately in Model 1, and grouped in Model 2. Age in days, dystocia, and body condition score at enrollment were offered to both models.
Figure 1Effect of vaccination on rectal temperature at 6±1 DIM.
Vaccines were evaluated separately (A, P-value = 0.14), and grouped (B, P-value = 0.018). Standard errors of the means are represented by the error bars.
Effects of different vaccine formulations on incidence of intrauterine Escherichia coli at 2±1 DIM, Fusobacterium necrophorum at 6±1 DIM and Trueperella pyogenes at 35±3 DIM.
| Model and variables | Cows positive for intrauterine culture (%) | Coefficients (SE) | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|
|
|
| |||
| Control | 55.0 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Vaccine 1 | 47.1 | −0.01 (0.26) | 0.73 (0.37–1.45) | |
| Vaccine 2 | 46.1 | −0.09 (0.25) | 0.67 (0.34–1.34) | |
| Vaccine 3 | 40.4 | −0.36 (0.26) | 0.52 (0.26–1.03) | 0.57 |
| Vaccine 4 | 50.9 | 0.10 (0.25) | 0.82 (0.42–1.61) | |
| Vaccine 5 | 50.0 | 0.05 (0.26) | 0.78 (0.39–1.55) | |
| Intercept | 1.91 (1.14) | |||
|
|
| |||
| Control | 55.0 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Subcutaneous | 44.5 | −0.23 (0.14) | 0.63 (0.38–1.06) | 0.21 |
| Intravaginal | 50.5 | −0.01 (0.46) | 0.80 (0.46–1.40) | |
| Intercept | 1.89 (1.13) | |||
|
|
| |||
| Control | 49.0 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Vaccine 1 | 36.0 | −0.39 (0.26) | 0.59 (0.29–1.18) | |
| Vaccine 2 | 48.0 | 0.11 (0.26) | 0.96 (0.49–1.90) | |
| Vaccine 3 | 48.0 | 0.11 (0.26) | 0.96 (0.49–1.90) | 0.76 |
| Vaccine 4 | 47.2 | 0.07 (0.25) | 0.93 (0.48–1.81) | |
| Vaccine 5 | 44.0 | −0.05 (0.26) | 0.82 (0.41–1.62) | |
| Intercept | −0.19 (0.11) | |||
|
|
| |||
| Control | 49.0 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Subcutaneous | 44.0 | −0.09 (0.14) | 0.82 (0.49–1.36) | 0.74 |
| Intravaginal | 45.6 | −0.02 (0.16) | 0.87 (0.50–1.52) | |
| Intercept | −0.15 (0.11) | |||
|
|
| |||
| Control | 14.5 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Vaccine 1 | 5.3 | −0.80 (0.63) | 0.30 (0.06–1.46) | |
| Vaccine 2 | 21.2 | 0.77 (0.42) | 1.44 (0.48–4.32) | |
| Vaccine 3 | 12.5 | 0.05 (0.46) | 0.70 (0.21–2.30) | 0.37 |
| Vaccine 4 | 12.1 | 0.06 (0.50) | 0.70 (0.20–2.52) | |
| Vaccine 5 | 7.3 | −0.49 (0.54) | 0.41 (0.10–1.61) | |
| Intercept | −16.55 (5.48) | |||
|
|
| |||
| Control | 14.5 | Ref. | baseline | |
| Subcutaneous | 12.6 | 0.01 (0.26) | 0.74 (0.30–1.82) | 0.50 |
| Intravaginal | 9.5 | −0.32 (0.31) | 0.53 (0.19–1.53) | |
| Intercept | −16.66 (5.48) |
Vaccines were evaluated separately in Model 1, Model 3 and Model 5; and grouped in Model 2, Model 4 and Model 6. Age in days, dystocia, and body condition score at enrollment were offered to both models.
Figure 2Effect of subcutaneous and intravaginal vaccines on reproduction.
The median calving-to-conception interval for subcutaneously vaccinated cows (inner interrupted line), intravaginally vaccinated cows (middle interrupted line), and control cows (solid line) was 94, 114, and 120 respectively. (P-value = 0.04).
Figure 3Effect of vaccination on ELISA-detected serum IgG against E. coli (A), FimH (B), F. necrophorum (C), LKT (D), T. pyogenes (E), and PLO (F). X-axis represents days relative to calving, while Y-axis represents OD650 of ELISA-detected serum IgG against several antigens.
Standard errors of the means are represented by the error bars.