Nathan Erickson, Cheryl Waldner, Emily Snyder, Maria Bravo Araya, Michelle Sniatynski, John Ellis
{"title":"改良活疫苗和灭活疫苗对牛呼吸道合胞病毒、牛副流感病毒 3 型和牛冠状病毒新生儿粘膜免疫后增强反应的功效比较。","authors":"Nathan Erickson, Cheryl Waldner, Emily Snyder, Maria Bravo Araya, Michelle Sniatynski, John Ellis","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared clinical and immunological responses to coinfection challenge of beef calves mucosally primed and differentially boosted with commercial combination vaccines containing antigens against bovine coronavirus (BCoV), bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3 (BPIV3), and bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV).</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>Nineteen commercial beef heifers.</p><p><strong>Procedure: </strong>At birth, calves were mucosally (IN) primed with modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines, differentially boosted by injection of either combination MLV (IN-MLV) or inactivated virus (IN-KV) vaccines at a mean age of 44 d, and then challenged by coinfection with BCoV, BPIV3, and BRSV at weaning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were similarly protected from clinical disease and had anamnestic neutralizing antibody responses to all 3 viruses. The IN-KV group shed more BCoV, and less BPIV3 and BRSV, than the IN-MLV group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data indicated similar clinical and immunological protection between IN-MLV and IN-KV; however, shed of virus varied.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Whereas boosting with KV or MLV appeared to have similar efficacy, viral shed differences may affect disease control.</p>","PeriodicalId":9429,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of modified-live and inactivated vaccines in boosting responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3, and bovine coronavirus following neonatal mucosal priming of beef calves.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Erickson, Cheryl Waldner, Emily Snyder, Maria Bravo Araya, Michelle Sniatynski, John Ellis\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared clinical and immunological responses to coinfection challenge of beef calves mucosally primed and differentially boosted with commercial combination vaccines containing antigens against bovine coronavirus (BCoV), bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3 (BPIV3), and bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV).</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>Nineteen commercial beef heifers.</p><p><strong>Procedure: </strong>At birth, calves were mucosally (IN) primed with modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines, differentially boosted by injection of either combination MLV (IN-MLV) or inactivated virus (IN-KV) vaccines at a mean age of 44 d, and then challenged by coinfection with BCoV, BPIV3, and BRSV at weaning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were similarly protected from clinical disease and had anamnestic neutralizing antibody responses to all 3 viruses. The IN-KV group shed more BCoV, and less BPIV3 and BRSV, than the IN-MLV group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data indicated similar clinical and immunological protection between IN-MLV and IN-KV; however, shed of virus varied.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Whereas boosting with KV or MLV appeared to have similar efficacy, viral shed differences may affect disease control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265827/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative efficacy of modified-live and inactivated vaccines in boosting responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3, and bovine coronavirus following neonatal mucosal priming of beef calves.
Objective: This study compared clinical and immunological responses to coinfection challenge of beef calves mucosally primed and differentially boosted with commercial combination vaccines containing antigens against bovine coronavirus (BCoV), bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3 (BPIV3), and bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV).
Animals: Nineteen commercial beef heifers.
Procedure: At birth, calves were mucosally (IN) primed with modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines, differentially boosted by injection of either combination MLV (IN-MLV) or inactivated virus (IN-KV) vaccines at a mean age of 44 d, and then challenged by coinfection with BCoV, BPIV3, and BRSV at weaning.
Results: Both groups were similarly protected from clinical disease and had anamnestic neutralizing antibody responses to all 3 viruses. The IN-KV group shed more BCoV, and less BPIV3 and BRSV, than the IN-MLV group.
Conclusion: These data indicated similar clinical and immunological protection between IN-MLV and IN-KV; however, shed of virus varied.
Clinical relevance: Whereas boosting with KV or MLV appeared to have similar efficacy, viral shed differences may affect disease control.
期刊介绍：
The Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ) provides a forum for the discussion of all matters relevant to the veterinary profession. The mission of the Journal is to educate by informing readers of progress in clinical veterinary medicine, clinical veterinary research, and related fields of endeavor. The key objective of The CVJ is to promote the art and science of veterinary medicine and the betterment of animal health.
A report suggesting that animals have been unnecessarily subjected to adverse, stressful, or harsh conditions or treatments will not be processed for publication. Experimental studies using animals will only be considered for publication if the studies have been approved by an institutional animal care committee, or equivalent, and the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, or equivalent, have been followed by the author(s).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
