4.1 Article

Atrophic rhinitis vaccine composition triggers different serological profiles that do not correlate with protection

Journal

ACTA VETERINARIA HUNGARICA
Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 27-40

Publisher

AKADEMIAI KIADO
DOI: 10.1556/AVet.56.2008.1.4

Keywords

atrophic rhinitis; Bordetella bronchiseptica; Pasteurella multocida; toxin; swine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atrophic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread and economically important disease of swine caused by Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida. It can be controlled by vaccination. This study investigates the effect of altering the composition (adjuvants and/or addition of formalin-inactivated P. multocida toxin, fPMT) of conventional vaccines on the serological profile and on protection against AR in swine. A significantly higher B. bronchiseptica specific antibody titre was detected for vaccines with novel immunostimulants, the best being Montanide IMS 1313 (1:630 compared to 1: 274 obtained with alum). The highest B. bronchiseptica antibody titre was demonstrated for a combination of B. bronchiseptica - fPMT, while PMT antibody titre was highest for monovalent fPMT (both adjuvanted with IMS 1313). The AR-specific antibodies were transmitted from dams to their offspring in similar titres and with the same hierarchy of effectiveness. After a B. bronchiseptica - P. multocida bacterial challenge, piglets from dams vaccinated with fPMT combined with B. bronchiseptica or B. bronchiseptica - P. multocida bacterins showed the lowest nasal lesions scores (4.5 and 3.2, respectively, out of a possible maximum score of 18). These combinations, both of which were adjuvanted with IMS 1313, gave the best protection against experimentally induced AR. Our results show that the adjuvant and the antigen composition of the vaccine strongly affect seroconversion, and that the AR-specific antibody titre does not necessarily correlate with the degree of protection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available