Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
Protection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorGnazzo, Victoria
dc.contributor.authorQuattrocchi, Valeria
dc.contributor.authorSoria, Ivana
dc.contributor.authorPereyra, Erica Vanesa
dc.contributor.authorLangellotti, Cecilia Ana
dc.contributor.authorPedemonte, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorLópez, Virginia
dc.contributor.authorMarangunich, Laura An
dc.contributor.authorZamorano, Patricia Ines
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-19T17:17:26Z
dc.date.available2020-08-19T17:17:26Z
dc.date.issued2020-04
dc.identifier.issn1865-1674
dc.identifier.issn1865-1682
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13591
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7741
dc.identifier.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tbed.13591
dc.description.abstractProtection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines at the batch level. In this report, a mouse model was assessed as an alternative efficacy control for FMDV vaccines. To this aim, groups of cattle (n = 18) and BALB/c mice (n = 16) were inoculated with commercial FMDV vaccines and bleedings were performed 60 days post vaccination (dpv) in cattle and 21 dpv in mice. Specific FMDV antibody titres were measured in both species by a standardized lpELISA. A statistically significant association between antibody levels in cattle and mice has already been demonstrated. However, some vaccines have been misclassified since they were considered protective based on lpELISA results but did not induce good protection in cattle upon challenge. For this reason, other immunological parameters were evaluated to improve the prediction of protection in mice, without the need of using infective virus. In addition, antibody titres by lpELISA, the IgG2b/IgG1 isotype ratio and the Avidity Index were identified as good predictors, resulting in an optimal predictive model of protection. This mouse model could be a simple and economic alternative for testing FMD vaccines since the disadvantages of high costs and facility requirements associated with the use of large animals are overcome.es_AR
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherWileyes_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceTransboundary and Emerging Diseases (First published: 22 April 2020)es_AR
dc.subjectVirus Fiebre Aftosaes_AR
dc.subjectAphthoviruseng
dc.subjectEnfermedades de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Diseaseseng
dc.subjectVacunaes_AR
dc.subjectVaccineseng
dc.subjectRatónes_AR
dc.subjectMiceeng
dc.subjectModelos Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Modelseng
dc.titleMouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccineses_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenInstituto de Virologíaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Gnazzo, Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: Quattrocchi, Valeria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Soria, Ivana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Pereyra, Erica Vanesa. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Langellotti, Cecilia Ana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: Pedemonte, Andrea. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: López, Virginia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: Marangunich, Laura An. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: Zamorano, Patricia Ines. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record