Clin Exp Vaccine Res.  2018 Jul;7(2):139-144. 10.7774/cevr.2018.7.2.139.

Genetic identification and serological evaluation of commercial inactivated foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccine in pigs

• Je SH
• Kwon T
• Yoo SJ
• Lee DU
• Seo SW
• Byun JJ
• Shin JY
• Lyoo YS

• KMID: 2418092
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.7774/cevr.2018.7.2.139

Abstract

Vaccination is considered a frequently used tool to prevent and control foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, the effectiveness of conventional FMD virus (FMDV) vaccines in pigs has been controversial because the massive prophylactic vaccination could not elicit proper immune response nor prevent the broad spread of FMD outbreak, mainly in pig farms, in South Korea during outbreaks of 2014. In addition, there has been little information on the efficacy of inactivated, high potency, multivalent, oil-based FMDV vaccine in pigs, because an evaluation of FMDV vaccines had been mainly carried out using cattle. In this study, we evaluated the genetic identification of commercial inactivated FMDV vaccine and monitored the immune responses in pigs under the field condition. Results implied that it contained three different serotypes with a high level of antigen payload. However, serological results showed low mean percentage of inhibition, and positive rate reached its peak at 6-week post-vaccination, indicating current FMDV vaccine need to improve for a prophylactic vaccination policy in pigs. Therefore, there is an imperative need to develop FMDV vaccine that can provide rapid and long-lasting protective immunity in pigs.

Keyword

Antibody formation; Foot-and-mouth disease; Real-time polymerase chain reaction; Vaccines

MeSH Terms

Agriculture
Animals
Antibody Formation
Cattle
Disease Outbreaks
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus*
Foot-and-Mouth Disease*
Korea
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
Serogroup
Swine*
Vaccination
Vaccines
Vaccines

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Comparison of amino acid sequences of partial VP1 of three different serotypes between commercial vaccine strains and GenBank-deposited strains: O serotype (A), A serotype (B), and Asia 1 serotype (C). Gray shad in black box and black box indicated non-synonymous and synonymous mutations, respectively.

• 

  Fig. 2 Serological responses (structural protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) of commercial inactivated foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) vaccines: mean positive inhibition (PI) value±standard deiviation (A) and positive rates (B). The mean PI value and positive rates gradually increased until 6 weeks.

Reference

1. Grubman MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004; 17:465–493.

2. Leon EA. Foot-and-mouth disease in pigs: current epidemiological situation and control methods. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2012; 59:Suppl 1. 36–49.

3. Lyons NA, Lyoo YS, King DP, Paton DJ. Challenges of generating and maintaining protective vaccine-induced immune responses for foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs. Front Vet Sci. 2016; 3:102.

4. Park JH, Lee KN, Kim SM, et al. Reemergence of foot-and-mouth disease, South Korea, 2000–2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014; 20:2158–2161.

5. Reid SM, Ferris NP, Hutchings GH, Zhang Z, Belsham GJ, Alexandersen S. Detection of all seven serotypes of foot-and-mouth disease virus by real-time, fluorogenic reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay. J Virol Methods. 2002; 105:67–80.

6. Larionov A, Krause A, Miller W. A standard curve based method for relative real time PCR data processing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005; 6:62.

7. Ruijter JM, Ramakers C, Hoogaars WM, et al. Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 37:e45.

8. Doel TR. Optimisation of the immune response to foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Vaccine. 1999; 17:1767–1771.

9. Kim AY, Tark D, Kim H, et al. Determination of optimal age for single vaccination of growing pigs with foot-and-mouth disease bivalent vaccine in South Korea. J Vet Med Sci. 2017; 79:1822–1825.

10. Park JH. Requirements for improved vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease epidemics. Clin Exp Vaccine Res. 2013; 2:8–18.

11. Doel TR. FMD vaccines. Virus Res. 2003; 91:81–99.

12. Paton DJ, Valarcher JF, Bergmann I, et al. Selection of foot and mouth disease vaccine strains: a review. Rev Sci Tech. 2005; 24:981–993.

13. Crowther JR, Reckziegel PO, Prado JA. Quantification of whole virus particles (146S) of foot-and-mouth disease virus in the presence of virus subunits (12S), using monoclonal antibodies in a sandwich ELISA. Vaccine. 1995; 13:1064–1075.

14. Spitteler MA, Fernandez I, Schabes E, et al. Foot and mouth disease (FMD) virus: quantification of whole virus particles during the vaccine manufacturing process by size exclusion chromatography. Vaccine. 2011; 29:7182–7187.

15. Salt JS, Barnett PV, Dani P, Williams L. Emergency vaccination of pigs against foot-and-mouth disease: protection against disease and reduction in contact transmission. Vaccine. 1998; 16:746–754.

16. Fukai K, Nishi T, Shimada N, et al. Experimental infections using the foot-and-mouth disease virus O/JPN/2010 in animals administered a vaccine preserved for emergency use in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2017; 79:128–136.

17. Wilna V, Hong NT, Geoffrey FT, et al. Efficacy of a high potency O1 Manisa monovalent vaccine against heterologous challenge with a FMDV O Mya98 lineage virus in pigs 4 and 7 days post vaccination. Vaccine. 2015; 33:2778–2785.