Abstract

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a trivalent vaccine mixture and compare it to the respective monovalent vaccines against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV).ResultsPigs that were triple challenged with M. hyopneumoniae, PCV2, and PRRSV following vaccination with the trivalent vaccine mixture exhibited a significantly better growth performance when compared to unvaccinated and challenged pigs. A statistical difference was not found when comparing pig populations which were vaccinated with the trivalent vaccine followed by a triple challenge and pigs vaccinated with monovalent M hyopneumoniae vaccine followed by mycoplasmal single challenge in the following areas: M. hyopneumoniae nasal shedding, the number of M. hyopneumoniae-specific interferon-γ secreting cells (IFN-γ-SC), and mycoplasmal lung lesion scores. Pigs vaccinated with the trivalent vaccine mixture followed by a triple challenge resulted in a similar reduction of PCV2 viremia, an increase in the number of PCV2-specific IFN-γ-SC and reduction in interstitial lung lesion scores when compared to pigs vaccinated with a PCV-2 vaccine and challenged with PCV2 only. Lastly, there was a significant difference in the reduction of PRRSV viremia, an increase in PRRSV-specific IFN-γ-SC and a reduction of interstitial lung lesion scores between pigs vaccinated with the trivalent vaccine mixture followed by a triple challenge and pigs vaccinated with a monovalent PRRSV vaccine followed by PRRSV challenge only.ConclusionThe trivalent vaccine mixture was efficacious against a triple challenge of M. hyopneumoniae, PCV2, and PRRSV. The trivalent vaccine mixture, however, did not result in equal protection when compared against each respective monovalent vaccine, with the largest vaccine occurring within PRRSV.

Highlights

  • The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a trivalent vaccine mixture and compare it to the respective monovalent vaccines against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)

  • The etiological agents associated with Porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) may vary between different geographic regions, but in Asia, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) are the primary pathogens which cause the majority of the PRDC cases resulting in devastating economic losses [1]

  • Average daily weight gain No statistical difference was observed in the average body weight among the 9 groups at 21 days of age which was the start of the study; Vac3FLEX/Ch3 (n = 20, 6.42 Kg ± 0.54), VacMhp/ ChMhp (n = 20, 6.41 Kg ± 0.52), VacPCV2/ChPCV2 (n = 20, 6.41 Kg ± 0.49), VacPRRS/ChPRRSV (n = 20, 6.42 Kg ± 0.45), UnVac/Ch3 (n = 10, 6.41 Kg ± 0.51), UnVac/ ChMhp (n = 10, 6.43 Kg ± 0.47), UnVac/ChPCV2 (n = 10, 6.41 Kg ± 0.45), UnVac/ChPRRSV (n = 10, 6.42 Kg ± 0.45) and UnVac/UnCh (n = 10, 6.42 Kg ± 0.49)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a trivalent vaccine mixture and compare it to the respective monovalent vaccines against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). A trivalent vaccine mixture (3FLEX, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, St. Joseph, Missouri, USA) against M. hyopneumoniae, PCV2, and PRRSV has been licensed in many Asian countries to control PRDC. There is concern from some swine producers that this trivalent vaccine mixture may be less effective compared to the respective monovalent vaccines currently available because of possible interferences among the mixed antigens. We decided to evaluate the efficacy of this trivalent vaccine mixture (3FLEX, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica) against a triple challenge of M. hyopneumoniae, PCV2, and PRRSV and compare it to the efficacy of the respective monovalent vaccines. Immunological, microbiological, and pathological parameters were chosen for evaluation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call