4.6 Article

Assessment on Different Vaccine Formulation Parameters in the Protection against Heterologous Challenge with FMDV in Cattle

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14081781

关键词

FMDV; cattle; heterologous protection

类别

资金

  1. INTA [PNSA 1115052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) remains a major threat to animal health worldwide. The variability of FMDV antigen poses challenges to vaccine-based control strategies. This study analyzed the immune responses of vaccinated cattle and their associations with clinical outcomes after infection with a different strain of FMDV.
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) remains one of the major threats to animal health worldwide. Its causative agent, the FMD virus (FMDV), affects cloven-hoofed animals, including farm animals and wildlife species, inflicting severe damage to the international trade and livestock industry. FMDV antigenic variability remains one of the biggest challenges for vaccine-based control strategies. The current study analyzed the host's adaptive immune responses in cattle immunized with different vaccine protocols and investigated its associations with the clinical outcome after infection with a heterologous strain of FMDV. The results showed that antigenic payload, multivalency, and revaccination may impact on the clinical outcome after heterologous challenge with FMDV. Protection from the experimental infection was related to qualitative traits of the elicited antibodies, such as avidity, IgG isotype composition, and specificity diversity, modulating and reflecting the vaccine-induced maturation of the humoral response. The correlation analyses of the serum avidity obtained per vaccinated individual might suggest that conventional vaccination can induce high-affinity immunoglobulins against conserved epitopes even within different FMDV serotypes. Cross-reaction among strains by these high-affinity antibodies may support further protection against a heterologous infection with FMDV.

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

4.6
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