4.7 Article

The Importance of Quality Control of LSDV Live Attenuated Vaccines for Its Safe Application in the Field

期刊

VACCINES
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9091019

关键词

vaccine; quality control; lumpy skin disease; recombinant

资金

  1. Sciensano
  2. EURL for Diseases Caused by Capripox Viruses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vaccination is an effective method to prevent, control, and eradicate diseases like lumpy skin disease (LSD). However, ensuring the quality of vaccine batches is crucial. This study demonstrated the presence of multiple Capripox viruses and possible recombinants in the LSD vaccine, which could have negative implications for efficacy and diagnostics.
Vaccination is an effective approach to prevent, control and eradicate diseases, including lumpy skin disease (LSD). One of the measures to address farmer hesitation to vaccinate is guaranteeing the quality of vaccine batches. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the importance of a quality procedure via the evaluation of the LSD vaccine, Lumpivax (Kevevapi). The initial PCR screening revealed the presence of wild type LSD virus (LSDV) and goatpox virus (GTPV), in addition to vaccine LSDV. New phylogenetic PCRs were developed to characterize in detail the genomic content and a vaccination/challenge trial was conducted to evaluate the impact on efficacy and diagnostics. The characterization confirmed the presence of LSDV wild-, vaccine- and GTPV-like sequences in the vaccine vial and also in samples taken from the vaccinated animals. The analysis was also suggestive for the presence of GTPV-LSDV (vaccine/wild) recombinants. In addition, the LSDV status of some of the animal samples was greatly influenced by the differentiating real-PCR used and could result in misinterpretation. Although the vaccine was clinically protective, the viral genomic content of the vaccine (being it multiple Capripox viruses and/or recombinants) and the impact on the diagnostics casts serious doubts of its use in the field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据