Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec 15:8:750223.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.750223. eCollection 2021.

Evaluation of Potency and Duration of Immunity Elicited by a Multivalent FMD Vaccine for Use in South Africa

Faith R M Peta  1   2 , M M Sirdar  1 , Peter van Bavel  1   3 , P B Mutowembwa  1 , N Visser  1   3 , J Olowoyo  4 , M Seheri  2 , Livio Heath  1
Affiliations

Evaluation of Potency and Duration of Immunity Elicited by a Multivalent FMD Vaccine for Use in South Africa

Faith R M Peta et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

South Africa (SA) experiences sporadic foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks irrespective of routine prophylactic vaccinations of cattle using imported commercial vaccines. The problem could be mitigated by preparation of vaccines from local virus strains related to those circulating in the endemically infected buffalo populations in the Kruger National Park (KNP). This study demonstrates the individual number of protective doses (PD) of five vaccine candidate strains after homologous virus challenge, as well as the vaccines safety and onset of humoral immunity in naïve cattle. Furthermore, the duration of post-vaccination immunity over a 12-month period is shown, when a multivalent vaccine prepared from the five strains is administered as a primary dose with or without booster vaccinations. The five monovalent vaccines were shown to contain a 50% PD between 4 and 32, elicit humoral immunity with antibody titers ≥2.0 log10 from day 7 post-vaccination, and cause no adverse reactions. Meanwhile, the multivalent vaccine elicited antibody titers ≥2.0 log10 and clinical protection up to 12 months when one or two booster vaccinations were administered within 6 months of the primary vaccination. An insignificant difference between the application of one or two booster vaccinations was revealed. Owing to the number of PDs, we anticipate that the multivalent vaccine could be used successfully for prophylactic and emergency vaccinations without adjustment of the antigen payloads. Furthermore, a prophylactic vaccination regimen comprising primary vaccination of naïve cattle followed by two booster vaccinations 1.5 and 6 months later could potentially maintain herd immunity over a period of 12 months.

Keywords: 50% protective dose (potency); South Africa; clinical protection; duration of immunity; humoral immunity; vaccine candidate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

PB and NV were employed by company Private Consultants, Boxmeer. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean (±SD) rectal body temperatures (°C) of groups of animals vaccinated with 2 ml of the five monovalent vaccines [0–28 days post-vaccination (dpv)] and after respective homologous virus challenge [1–10 days post-challenge (dpc)]. The horizontal dotted line represents the baseline temperature (38.5°C).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean (±SD) antibody titers (liquid phase blocking ELISA) elicited by full-dose vaccination with the five monovalent vaccines, monitored weekly over a period of 28 dpv. The green line represents the cut-off titer of 1.6 log10 based on day 0, pre-vaccination titers.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean virus neutralizing (VN) antibody titers (±SD) over 12 months post-application of three vaccination regimens. The yellow line represents animals' mean antibody titers (≤ 1.6 log10) before vaccination and the VN test's standard negative control titer.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison between vaccination groups of the mean log10 VN titers (independent samples Kruskal–Wallis Test).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bruban MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. (2004) 17:465–93. 10.1128/CMR.17.2.465-493.2004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Han L, Xin X, Wang H, Li J, Hao Y, Wang M, et al. . Cellular response to persistent foot-and-mouth disease virus infection is linked to specific types of alterations in the host cell transcriptome. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:1–13. 10.1038/s41598-018-23478-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alexandersen S, Mowat N. Foot-and-mouth disease: host range and pathogenesis. In: Mahy BW, editor. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, Vol. 288. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; (2005) p. 9–42. - PubMed
    1. Arzt J, Juleff N, Zhang Z, Rodriguez LL. The pathogenesis of foot and mouth disease I: viral pathways in cattle. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2011) 58:291–304. 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01204.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lefabran Y, Gerbier G. Review of the status of foot and mouth disease and approach to control/eradication in Europe and Central Asia. Rev Sci Tech. (2002) 21:477–92. 10.20506/rst.21.3.1345 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources