Comparative evaluation of 4 commercial modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccines against heterologous dual Korean PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 challenge.
co-infection
modified-live virus vaccine
porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome
vaccination
Journal
Veterinary medicine and science
ISSN: 2053-1095
Titre abrégé: Vet Med Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101678837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
17
03
2020
revised:
19
04
2020
accepted:
25
04
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
20
7
2021
entrez:
22
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Four commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) modified-live vaccines (MLV) was compared to protect growing pigs against dual challenge of PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2. Two of the vaccines were based on PRRSV-1, and two on PRRSV-2. A total of 72 PRRSV-naïve pigs were divided into six groups (12 pigs/group). Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated and two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) genomic copies of PRRSV-1 in their sera compared to the unvaccinated challenged group. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) fewer genomic copies of PRRSV-2 in their sera whereas two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups were unable to reduce genomic copies of PRRSV-2 compared to unvaccinated challenged groups. Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-1 specific IFN-γ-SC response, while two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-2 specific IFN-γ-SC response. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups showed significantly (p < .05) lower mean macroscopic and microscopic lung lesion scores compared to two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups. These data demonstrated that two PRRSV-2 vaccines were efficacious and exhibited similar protection while, two PRRSV-1 vaccines were largely ineffective against the dual challenge.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Four commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) modified-live vaccines (MLV) was compared to protect growing pigs against dual challenge of PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2.
METHODS
Two of the vaccines were based on PRRSV-1, and two on PRRSV-2. A total of 72 PRRSV-naïve pigs were divided into six groups (12 pigs/group).
RESULTS
Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated and two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) genomic copies of PRRSV-1 in their sera compared to the unvaccinated challenged group. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups reduced significantly (p < .05) fewer genomic copies of PRRSV-2 in their sera whereas two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups were unable to reduce genomic copies of PRRSV-2 compared to unvaccinated challenged groups. Two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-1 specific IFN-γ-SC response, while two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups induced a stronger PRRSV-2 specific IFN-γ-SC response. Two PRRSV-2 MLV-vaccinated groups showed significantly (p < .05) lower mean macroscopic and microscopic lung lesion scores compared to two PRRSV-1 MLV-vaccinated groups.
CONCLUSIONS
These data demonstrated that two PRRSV-2 vaccines were efficacious and exhibited similar protection while, two PRRSV-1 vaccines were largely ineffective against the dual challenge.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32437071
doi: 10.1002/vms3.282
pmc: PMC7738743
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vaccines, Attenuated
0
Viral Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
846-853Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Veterinary Medicine and Science Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Vet Med Sci. 2020 Nov;6(4):846-853
pubmed: 32437071
Vet Res. 2014 Feb 02;45:12
pubmed: 24484238
Vaccine. 2009 Jun 8;27(28):3704-18
pubmed: 19464553
J Vet Diagn Invest. 1994 Oct;6(4):410-5
pubmed: 7858019
Vet Microbiol. 2010 Jul 14;143(2-4):394-400
pubmed: 20053505
J Comp Pathol. 2015 May;152(4):317-24
pubmed: 25869916
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Aug 27;172(3-4):432-42
pubmed: 24970363
Vet Pathol. 1995 Nov;32(6):648-60
pubmed: 8592800
Vet Rec. 2016 Mar 19;178(12):291
pubmed: 26864027
Vet J. 2013 Mar;195(3):313-8
pubmed: 22831992
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008 Mar;20(2):156-63
pubmed: 18319427
Can J Vet Res. 2019 Jan;83(1):57-67
pubmed: 30670903
J Comp Pathol. 2012 Aug-Oct;147(2-3):275-84
pubmed: 22316433
Vet J. 2008 Sep;177(3):345-51
pubmed: 17644436
Res Vet Sci. 2015 Dec;103:193-200
pubmed: 26679817
Vet Microbiol. 2003 May 2;93(1):25-38
pubmed: 12591204
Vet Microbiol. 2016 Aug 30;192:102-109
pubmed: 27527771
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2005 Jun 15;106(1-2):107-12
pubmed: 15910997
J Gen Virol. 2013 Oct;94(Pt 10):2141-2163
pubmed: 23939974
Arch Virol. 2017 Jan;162(1):139-146
pubmed: 27695957
Vaccine. 2017 Feb 1;35(5):782-788
pubmed: 28062126
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Mar 1;218(5):669-96
pubmed: 11280396
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015 Jun;22(6):631-40
pubmed: 25855554
Virology. 2003 Apr 25;309(1):18-31
pubmed: 12726723
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Oct;42(10):4453-61
pubmed: 15472293