Cross-protective efficacy of the O1 Manisa + O 3039 bivalent vaccine and the O 3039 monovalent vaccine against heterologous challenge with FMDV O/Jincheon/SKR/2014 in pig
Introduction
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious disease of many cloven-hoofed animals, such as cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. FMD is caused by FMD virus (FMDV), which is a single-stranded, positive sense RNA virus (genus Aphthovirus, family Picornaviridae), and consists of seven serotypes: O, A, C, Asia 1, SAT 1, SAT 2 and SAT 3 [1]. Among the seven serotypes, O and A have been distributed globally, and the O type occurs most frequently worldwide. Serotype C was assumed to be extinct after the last outbreaks in Brazil and Kenya in 2004 [2], [3], [4].
Since 2000, 10 major FMD outbreaks have occurred in the Republic of Korea [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. On Nov. 28th, 2010, a FMD outbreak occurred in Andong city and spread nationwide, affecting 3,748 farms [6], [10]. A couple of weeks after the first outbreak in Andong city, Korean authorities renounced the stamping out policy and decided to use commercial FMD vaccines to control the outbreak due to the devastating nationwide spread of FMD [5].
Although FMD vaccines containing the O1 Manisa strain have been successfully used for nationwide mandatory vaccination in South Korea since 2011, the O1 Manisa strain was not effective in controlling the FMD situation of the Jincheon outbreak after Dec 2014 [8]. Therefore, O type strain changes in FMD vaccines were inevitable to reinforce the efficacy of the vaccine. Several vaccine efficacy studies were conducted to select the potential candidates to change the O type vaccine strains to prevent the sporadic FMD outbreaks in Korea.
In this study, the O1 Manisa + O 3039 bivalent vaccine (O1 Manisa + O 3039 vaccine) and O 3039 monovalent vaccine (O 3039 vaccine) were evaluated to determine their protective immunity against infection with the O/Jincheon/SKR/2014 (O Jincheon) strain in pigs. Additionally, a field trial of the O1 Manisa + O 3039 vaccine was conducted to evaluate the serological performance of the vaccine in the field.
Section snippets
Vaccine matching
When FMD occurs in Korea, the FMD samples are sent to the FMD World Reference Laboratory (WRL) at Pirbright, UK. We then receive the vaccine matching results from the test organizations. Vaccine matching was performed in the manner of a two-dimensional neutralization test described previously [11].
Challenge virus and cells used in the study
FMDV O/Jincheon/SKR/2014 (Mya-98 lineage strain) originated from the FMD outbreak in Jincheon County, Chungcheongbuk-do Province, in 2014. This isolate was propagated and titrated in bovine calf
Vaccine matching
According to results of the FMD WRL, the r1 value between the O1 Manisa strain and the O Jincheon strain was 0.10 ∼ 0.30, and the r1 value between the O 3039 strain and the O Jincheon strain was 0.42 ∼ 0.73.
Clinical signs
All vaccinated animals in group A and unvaccinated control animals were not protected against challenge. Of 5 pigs in group B, only 1 pig was protected. All vaccinated pigs in group C were protected. In unvaccinated control animals, lesions were observed starting at 3 days postchallenge
Discussion and conclusions
In general, one of the considerations to select the FMD vaccine strain is the r1 value between the vaccine strain and the field FMDV [15]. According to vaccine matching results reported by FMD WRL, the r1 values of O1 Manisa and O 3039 with the O Jincheon strain were 0.10 ∼ 0.30 and 0.42 ∼ 0.73, respectively. If the r1 value between the vaccine strain and the field virus is greater than 0.3, it is generally assumed that the vaccine containing the vaccine strain is likely to confer protection
Acknowledgments
We thank the staff of the Center for FMD Vaccine Research at the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (APQA). This research was supported by a grant from the APQA’s National Animal Disease Research Project.
Grant sponsor: Supported by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, Gimcheon, Gyeongsangbuk, Republic of Korea.
Conflict of interest
None.
References (22)
- et al.
Molecular epidemiology, evolution and phylogeny of foot-and-mouth disease virus
Infect Genet Evol
(2018) - et al.
Some guidelines for determining foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strain matching by serology
Vaccine
(2009) - et al.
Protection to homologous and heterologous challenge in pigs immunized with vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease type O caused an epidemic in East Asia during 2010/2011
Vaccine
(2014) - et al.
Vaccination of pigs two weeks before infection significantly reduces transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus
Vaccine
(2004) - et al.
Foot and mouth disease virus transmission among vaccinated pigs after exposure to virus shedding pigs
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
No between-pen transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus in vaccinated pigs
Vaccine
(2010) - et al.
Response of young pigs to foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccination in the presence and absence of maternally derived neutralising antibodies
Res Vet Sci
(1986) - et al.
Efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine in pigs with single dose immunization
Vaccine
(2003) - et al.
Influence of antibodies transferred by colostrum in the immune responses of calves to current foot-and-mouth disease vaccines
Vaccine
(2014) - et al.
Review of the global distribution of foot-and-mouth disease virus from 2007 to 2014
Transbound Emerg Dis
(2017)
Epidemiological patterns of foot-and-mouth disease worldwide
Transbound Emerg Dis
Cited by (9)
Evaluation of swine protection with foot-and-mouth disease O<inf>1</inf>/Campos and O/Primorsky/2014 vaccines against the O Mya-98 lineage virus from East Asia
2021, VaccineCitation Excerpt :Despite the Korean government’s strong vaccination policies, five more type O FMD outbreaks threatened the country after the 2010–2011 epidemic, probably because various topotypes and genotypes of FMD have circulated in Asian countries around Korea. Owing to the poor FMD control with an O1/Manisa-based vaccine against the O/SEA/Mya-98 lineage field viruses that emerged in December 2014, the Korean government decided to use an FMD vaccine formulated with an additional FMD antigen, the O/3039 strain, for the control of FMD outbreaks [10]. However, the introduction of more vaccine suppliers was considered to enhance more durable immunity by a more stable FMD vaccine supply and flexible application in the field, such as two-shot vaccination in piglets, requiring more than approximately 22 million doses per year.
The interference effect of maternally-derived antibodies on the serological performance of pigs immunized with a foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccine
2020, VaccineCitation Excerpt :It seems that the better management of husbandry or hygiene at the NIAS farm might help the vaccinated animals have more immunological stimulation to the FMD vaccine, considering that the NIAS is one of the government institutes that is responsible for studying the scientific husbandry management of Korean livestock. Many studies have reported the interfering effect of MDA on the serological performance of animals vaccinated with FMD vaccines [22–29]. There were also several reports that high antibody levels were achieved in fattening pigs up to 24 weeks old with a single vaccination of a high-potency DOE vaccine at 8 weeks old, while the anti-FMD antibodies in MDA interfered with the active immune response to the oil vaccination [24,25,28].
Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
2019, VaccineCitation Excerpt :The study also illustrated the inter-relationship between vaccine potency and antigenic match, in that high potency vaccines (some ≥32 PD50) eliciting strong homologous antibody responses could provide cross-protection against heterologous challenge strains despite a poor antigenic match (Fig. 2). Re-vaccination and combining multiple vaccine strains can also broaden the antibody response, improving the likelihood of cross-protective immunity [41–43]. Serological tests that measure anti-virus capsid antibodies (SP tests for structural protein antibodies) can be used to assess protection afforded by vaccines (or prior infection).