| Literature DB >> 34063582 |
Hyungmin Um1, Siyeon Yang1, Taehwan Oh1, Keehwan Park1, Hyejean Cho1, Jeongmin Suh1, Kyung-Duk Min2, Chanhee Chae1.
Abstract
The present field trial compared two combined vaccines of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, each administered in herd with subclinical PCV2d infection and enzootic pneumonia. One vaccine was a bivalent containing PCV2a and M. hyopneumoniae and the other was a trivalent vaccine containing PCV2a and 2b (PCV2a/b), and M. hyopneumoniae. The defining difference between these two vaccines was the inclusion or absence of PCV2b antigen. A total of 480, 21day-old pigs were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (120 pigs per group, male = 60 and female = 60). These groups included; one-dose trivalent-vaccinated, two-dose trivalent-vaccinated, one-dose bivalent-vaccinated, and unvaccinated. The one- and two-dose trivalent vaccinated pigs exhibited significantly better growth performance when compared with those vaccinated with the bivalent vaccine. The one- and two-dose trivalent vaccinated pigs also reduced the amount of PCV2d loads in the blood and feces, and resulted in a lower M. hyopneumoniae load in the larynx when compared with one-dose bivalent vaccinated pigs. Statistical differences were not observed between the one- and two-dose trivalent-vaccinated groups in terms of growth performance, serology, amount of PCV2d loads in the blood and feces, amount of M. hyopneumoniae load in larynx, and pathological lesions. The results of the present study will provide swine practitioners and producer with comparative clinical field data to select the proper vaccine and vaccination regiment for herds suffering from subclinical PCV2d infection and enzootic pneumonia.Entities:
Keywords: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae; porcine circovirus type 2; trivalent vaccine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063582 PMCID: PMC8147604 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9050450
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Field experimental design.
| Groups | No. of Pigs | Vaccine | Dosage | Age (Days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VacA1 | 120 | Fostera® Gold PCV MH | One (2.0 mL) | 21 |
| VacA2 | 120 | Fostera® Gold PCV MH | Two (1.0 mL) | 21, 42 |
| VacB | 120 | Porcilis® PCV M Hyo | One (2.0 mL) | 21 |
| UnVac | 120 | Phosphate buffered saline | One (2.0 mL) | 21 |
Growth performance with average daily weight gain (ADWG) and pathology between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals.
| Age | Groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Days) | VacA1 | VacA2 | VacB | UnVac | |
| ADWG | 21–70 | 399.90 ± 25.44 | 401.89 ± 24.05 | 395.51 ± 24.20 | 393.57 ± 31.13 |
| (gram/pig/day) | 70–175 | 775.62 ± 20.65 a | 772.73 ± 18.45 a,b | 765.23 ± 22.73 b | 715.74 ± 26.26 c |
| 21–175 | 656.06 ± 11.85 a | 654.74 ± 11.38 a | 647.65 ± 14.17 b | 613.46 ± 14.33 c | |
| Body weight | 21 | 5.57 ± 0.32 | 5.56 ± 0.33 | 5.51 ± 0.35 | 5.50 ± 0.36 |
| 175 | 106.60 ± 1.82 a | 106.39 ± 1.71 a | 105.25 ± 2.15 b | 99.96 ± 2.19 c | |
| Macroscopic | 175 | 17.82 ± 6.90 a | 18.21 ± 7.85 a | 19.70 ± 8.21 a | 28.60 ± 10.67 b |
| lung lesions | |||||
| Microscopic | 175 | 0.73 ± 0.56 a | 0.78 ± 0.60 a | 0.88 ± 0.65 a | 2.04 ± 0.93 b |
| lung lesions | |||||
| Microscopic | 175 | 0.69 ± 0.59 | 0.73 ± 0.61 | 0.86 ± 0.58 | 1.07 ± 0.37 |
| lymphoid lesions | |||||
a,b,c Different superscripts indicate significant (p < 0.05) difference among 4 groups.
Summary of T cell epitope contents comparison (EpiCC) scores between porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccine and field strain.
| ORF2 of PCV2 of Vaccines | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Monovalent a | Bivalent b | Trivalent c | |
| Vaccine baseline d | 6.83 | 6.50 | 8.66 |
| Average baseline (sd) e | 10.49 (0.16) | ||
| EpiCC f | 6.83 | 6.50 | 8.66 |
| Coverage g | 65.36% | 62.22% | 82.82% |
a Monovalent (Ingelvac CircoFLEX®) vaccine used in the farms. b Bivalent (Porcilis® PCV M Hyo) vaccine used in this study. c Trivalent (Fostera® Gold PCV MH) vaccine used in this study. d EpiCC score calculated for the vaccine compared to itself. e Average baseline EpiCC score (and standard deviation) of full-length field strain. f EpiCC score of the vaccine compared to full-length field strain. g Coverage of each field strain’s baseline EpiCC score expressed as a percentage.
Figure 1Mean values of the genomic copy number of PCV2d DNA in serum (A) and feces (B) from VacA1 (●), VacA2 (●), VacB (●), and UnVac (●). Variation is expressed as the standard deviation. Different superscripts (a, b, and c) indicate significant (p < 0.05) different among 4 groups.
Figure 2Mean values of the genomic copy number of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae DNA in laryngeal swab from VacA1 (●), VacA2 (●), VacB (●), and UnVac (●). Variation is expressed as the standard deviation. Different superscripts (a, b, and c) indicate significant (p < 0.05) different among 4 groups.
Figure 3Mean values of the anti-PCV2 antibodies (A) and anti-Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae antibodies (B) from VacA1 (●), VacA2 (●), VacB (●), and UnVac (●). Variation is expressed as the standard deviation. Different superscripts (a, b, and c) indicate significant (p < 0.05) different among 4 groups.