4.5 Article

Confidence in indirect assessment of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency and vaccine matching carried out by liquid phase ELISA and virus neutralization tests

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 28, Issue 38, Pages 6235-6241

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.07.012

Keywords

Foot-and-mouth disease; Vaccine potency; Vaccine strain selection; Expectancy of protection

Funding

  1. Belgian Federal Public Service [RT-05/06-ALTANDI-2]
  2. Argentine Beef Promotion Institute (IPCVA)
  3. National Research Council (CONICET)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The necessity of avoiding the use of animals in vaccine potency testing has been widely recognized. The repeatability and reproducibility of the Expected Percentage of Protection (EPP) as a serological potency surrogate for A24 Cruzeiro foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) strain was assessed, and compared with the results obtained with challenge in the Protection against Podal Generalization (PPG) test. To determine the EPPs, the serum titers obtained by liquid phase blocking competitive ELISA (IpELISA) and virus neutralization (VNT) in 10 potency trials using the same A24 Cruzeiro vaccine, were interpolated into previously validated logit transformation curves that correlate PPG with serology. Indirect serological assessment of vaccine matching between the serotype A FMDV strains A24 Cruzeiro and A/Argentina/01 was also carried out by IpELISA and VNT. The results obtained in this study strongly support the replacement of challenge tests for vaccine potency by indirect serological assays, at least for A24 Cruzeiro FMDV strain. While determination of EPPs by IpELISA titers showed an excellent repeatability, reproducibility and concordance with PPG for vaccine potency, assessments of cross-protection by VNT titers were more consistent with the PPG outcome. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available