4.7 Article

A model to assess the efficacy of vaccines for control of liver fluke infection

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep23345

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. PARAVAC project [FP7-KBBE-2010-4]
  2. BBSRC Doctoral Training studentship
  3. BBSRC grant [BB/K015591/1]
  4. GLOWORM project [FP7-KBBE-2011-5]
  5. BBSRC [BB/K015591/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1221407, BB/K015591/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fasciola hepatica, common liver fluke, infects cattle and sheep causing disease and production losses costing approximately $3billion annually. Current control relies on drugs designed to kill the parasite. However, resistance is evident worldwide and widespread in some areas. Work towards a vaccine has identified several antigens of F. hepatica that show partial efficacy in terms of reducing worm burden and egg output. A critical question is what level of efficacy is required for such a vaccine to be useful? We have created the first mathematical model to assess the effectiveness of liver fluke vaccines under simulated field conditions. The model describes development of fluke within a group of animals and includes heterogeneity in host susceptibility, seasonal exposure to metacercariae and seasonal changes in temperature affecting metacercarial survival. Our analysis suggests that the potential vaccine candidates could reduce total fluke burden and egg output by up to 43% and 99%, respectively, on average under field conditions. It also suggests that for a vaccine to be effective, it must protect at least 90% of animals for the whole season. In conclusion, novel, partial, vaccines could contribute substantially towards fasciolosis control, reducing usage of anthelmintics and thus delaying the spread of anthelmintic resistance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available