Assay the antibody titer and duration of immunogenicity of foot-and-mouth oil vaccine containing domestic adjuvants compared to imported adjuvant and aluminum gel in livestock (goats)
Subject Areas :
مسعود مقدم پور
1
(بخش تحقیق و تولید واکسن های ویروسی ، موسسه تحقیقات واکسن و سرم رازی، سازمان تحقیقات کشاورزی، آموزش و ترویج (AREEO)، کرج، ایران)
Seid Mahmoud Azimi Dezfouli
2
(Department of Research and Production FMD Vaccine, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute (Hesarak), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran)
Keywords: FMD, aqueous vaccine, aluminum hydroxide, goat,
Abstract :
Foot and mouth disease is one of the infectious diseases in the livestock industry. In areas where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic the most effective way to control and prevent the disease is vaccination. At present, foot-and-mouth disease vaccine is commercially produced in two types of Alum and oil-based and is available to livestock farmers. In the present study, the level of humoral immune response and its duration following the administration of a vaccine prepared with an internal oil adjuvant compared to a vaccine with an imported adjuvant and a vaccine with aluminum gel in target animals (goats) were investigated. two occasions with an interval of 28 days vaccination were done. Sampling was done on days zero, 28, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210. The humoral immunity was investigated using serum neutralization method. Satistical methods were used in order to determine the significant difference in results of groups . The antibody titer obtained from group A and group B and group C showed the same increase until day 60, but from that time the serum titer of group C decrease , but the other groups(A&B) kept the titer obtained until day 210. The groups D and E during the research period could not have the good titer and quickly lost the low titer obtained on the 60th day. Statistical analysis of the results of serum resalts in the serum neutralization test (SN) showed a significant difference between the group of vaccines with oil adjuvants 62 B and ISA61 and other groups from the 60th day to the end of research. The neutralization rate of the above-mentioned two groups was reported to be about 2.6.The groups C and D performed very poorly in increasing the immunity level and also the length of the immunization period compared to the groups A and B. In total and considering the lack of decrease in the immunity level after 210 days (7 months) , in Group (B 62) where foot-and-mouth oil vaccine contained internal adjuvant was inoculated, compared to other foot-and-mouth vaccines, they can be of great help to the livestock industry to deal with foot-and-mouth disease.In total, considering the increase in the appropriate immunity rate up to 210 days (7 months) in the first group (B 62) which had a domestically produced adjuvant, compared to other groups, this type of vaccine can be great help to control FMD in animal husbandry industry.
1. Abol Abbas, L.K. Lichman, A. Puber, J. (2003) Cellular and molecular immunology. 5ed.
2. Aftosa, F.( 2007)Foot and Mouth Disease. The center for food security and public helth.
3. Ahmadzadeh, H. (1390) New type of foot and mouth disease. Agriculture and food industry weekly. sixth year Number 90 (In Persian)
4. Alexandersen, S. Mowat, N. (2005) Foot-and-mouth disease: Host range and pathogenesis. Current Concepts In Endometriosis, 288: 9-42.
5. Alexandersen, S. Zhang, Z. Donaldson, A.I. and Garland, A.J.(2003)The pathogenesis and diagnosis of foot and mouth disease. J. Comp. Pathol. 129: 1-36.
6. Allen, S. David, N. M, (2003) Coordinate Cytokine Gene Expression In Vivo following Induction of Tuberculous Pleurisy in Guinea Pigs. American Society for Microbiology, 71: 4271-4277.
7. Amanda, L. Barnarda, A.A. Sarah, C. Barnett, P. Birte, K. Summerfielda, A. Kenneth, C.(2005)Immune response characteristics following emergency vaccination of pigs against foot-and-mouth disease. Vaccine, 23,287: 1037–1047.
8. Ayele G. et al ,(2023)Combined Adjuvant Formulations Enhanced an Immune Response of Trivalent Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine in Cattle, Vet Med (Auckl). ; 14: 47–62.
9. Ayele G. et al ,(2022) Evaluation of different adjuvant formulations of trivalent Foot and Mouth Disease vaccine in 2022 DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1975001/v1
10. Bachrach, H. L.(1968) Foot-and-mouth disease. Annu. Rev. Microbiol, 22: 201–244.
11. Bahnemann HG. (1973)The inactivation of foot and mouth disease virus by ethyleneimine and propyleneimine. Zbl Vet Med; B20:356–60.
12. Barnett, P.V. Cox, S.J. Aggarwal, N. Gerber, H. and McCullough, K.C. (2002)Further studies on the arly protective responses of pigs following immunization with high potency foot and mouth disease vaccine. Vaccine, 20: 3197-3208.
13. Bartels, T. Schafer, H. Liebermann, H. Burger, R. Beyer, J.(1994)T-lymphocyte responsesin guinea pigs vaccinated with foot and mouth disease virus. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 40: 213-223.
14. Bittle, J. L. Houghten, R. A., Alexander, H. Shinnick, T. M. Sutcliffe J. G. Lerner, R. A. Rowlands D. J., and Brown F.(1982)Protection against foot-and-mouth disease by immunization with a chemically synthesized peptide predicted from the viral nucleotide sequence. Nature 298:30–33.
15. Blancou, J.(2003) History of the surveillance and control of transmissible animal diseases. World Organisation for Animal Health Paris, 362 pp Brooksby, J.B. 1982. foot and mouth disease virus. Intervirol. 18, 1-23.
16. Brown, F. (2003) The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease. Virus Research, 91: 3-7. 17. Cao Y. (2014) Adjuvants for foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccines: recent progress, Expert Rev Vaccines . 13 (11):1377-85.
18. Cox, S.J. Aggarwal, N. Statham, R.J. Barnett, P.V. (2003) Longevity of antibody and cytokine responses following vaccination with high potency emergency FMD vaccines. Vaccine 21, 254:1336–1347.
19. Dar P. , Kalaivanan R., Sied N., Mamo B., Kishore S., Suryanarayana V.V.S., Kondabattula G,( 2013) Montanide ISA™ 201 adjuvanted FMD vaccine induces improved immune responses and protection in cattle Vaccine ,18 ;31(33):3327-32.
20. DiMarchi, R. G. Brooke, C. Gale, V. Cracknell, T. Doel, N. Mowat.(1986) Protection of cattle against foot-and-mouth disease by a synthetic peptide. Science, 232:639–641.
21. Fenner, F. J. Gibbs, P. J. Murphy, Rott, F. A. R. Studdert, M. J. White, D. O. (1993) Veterinary virology, 403–430.
22. Lei, C. Yang, J. Hu, J. Sun, X. (2021)On the Calculation of TCID50 for Quantitation of Virus Infectivity, Virol Sin. 2021 36(1): 141–144.
23. Li, G. Li, Y. Yan, W. XU Q., WU Y., XIE Y., You U. and Zheng Z .(2001) CpG DNA enhances the immune responses elicited by the DNA vaccine against foot and mouth disease virus in guinea pigs. Chinese Science Bulletin 46:1376-1379.
24. Livak, K.J. Schmittgen, T.D.( 2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods, 25: 402-408.
25. Moghadam Pour, M. (1384) Comparison of two types of domestic and foreign oil adjuvant, 14th Iranian Veterinary Congress, 23rd of February 2014, Tehran, Razi Conference Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences(In Persian)
26. Moghadam Pour, M. Ebrahimi, M. M. Mohammad Pour, N. (1385) Research on the production of adjuvant used in poultry vaccines, the first student conference on chemical applications in industry, November 9-11, 2016, Department of Chemistry, Isfahan University(In Persian)
27. Park ME, Lee SY, Kim RH, Ko MK, Lee KN, Kim SM, Kim BK, Lee JS, Kim B, Park JH.(2014) Enhanced immune responses of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine using new oil/gel adjuvant mixtures in pigs and goats. Vaccine., 8;32 (40):5221-7.
28. Tizard, A. (1389) Veterinary Immunology. Translation: Shimi, A. The second edition of Nourbakhsh Tehran, Publishing House.
