Antibody response of beef calves to experimental monovalent and multivalent inactivated bovine viral diarrhoea virus vaccines as measured by indirect elisa method

M.D. Petrovic,V. Kurcubic,R. Djokovic,Z. Ilic,T. Petrovic

doi:10.2298/bah1103901k

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the immunogenic properties of two experimental inactivated (mono - and multivalent) vaccines containing BVDV type 1 reference strains (NADL, W1. - 162903, W2. - 172984, W3. - 173481, W4. - 179725) and one local field isolate derived from a calf suffering from mucosal disease (MD). Normal healthy beef calves (Simmental race) of mixed sex, 6 to 7 months of age, were divided into three experimental groups: ten calves vaccinated twice (days 1 and 28) subcutaneously (s/c) with 2 ml of inactivated multivalent vaccine per animal (Group I); ten calves vaccinated twice (days 1 and 28) subcutaneously (s/c) with 2 ml of inactivated monovalent vaccine per animal (Group II) and 9 unvaccinated calves (Control group C). Blood sera were obtained from immunized animals (standard procedure: on days 0, 14, 28, 42 and 56 post-immunization). The immune response to BVDV vaccine strains was assessed by the indirect ELISA method (Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus Antibody Test Kit BVDV HerdChek

Highlights

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is considered an important cause of economic loss in the cattle industry worldwide (Moenning, 1990)
Brownlie et al (1995) determined that the humoral immune response to the first dose of inactivated vaccine was weaker, turning into a typical anamnestic response stimulated by the second dose involving a much faster increase in antibody concentrations and higher antibody titers than after the primo-inoculation
The slower development and the weaker immune response in the animals receiving the multivalent vaccine preparation most likely resulted either from the competitiveness developing during the immune response to the larger number of antigens, or from the weaker immunogenicity of the same vaccine

Summary

Introduction

Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is considered an important cause of economic loss in the cattle industry worldwide (Moenning, 1990). Vaccination has been the conventional way to control or reduce BVDV-induced losses for the last 50 years (Brock, 2004). The use of vaccines may reduce economic losses caused by clinical disease, but does not appear to result in reduction of the prevalence of BVDV infections (O'Rourke, 2002). Vaccination is still the most common way to control BVD in most European countries (Moennig et al, 2005) and is considered to be a complementary biosecurity tool in countries with high BVDV prevalence, to prevent accidental reinfections of herds in the early stages of control or eradication campaigns. Diagnostic assays play an important role in this context (Houe et al, 2006), for identification of PI animals and, in the later stages, of field infection in vaccinated herds

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion