Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Immunology logoLink to Immunology
. 1986 Jul;58(3):421–428.

Immune protection against foot-and-mouth disease virus studied using virus-neutralizing and non-neutralizing concentrations of monoclonal antibodies.

K C McCullough, J R Crowther, R N Butcher, W C Carpenter, E Brocchi, L Capucci, F De Simone
PMCID: PMC1453459  PMID: 3015780

Abstract

Monoclonal antibodies (MAb) against sequential or conformational epitopes on foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) passively protected neonatal syngeneic (BALB/c) mice at dilutions at which they could not neutralize virus infectivity in vitro. The B2, D9, 1C6 and 4C9 MAb, against the Group 1 (sequential) and Group 2 (conformational) epitopes, protected the mice at an antibody:virion molar ratio of between 38:1 and 84:1 (12-18 times lower than that required for neutralization of virus infectivity in vitro). The 3C8 (Group 3) and 6C3 (Group 4) MAb were, respectively, between 5 and 12 times, and between 18 and 40 times, less efficient at protection. There was no consistent correlation between the efficiency of neutralization of virus infectivity in vitro and the protection of neonatal mice against the virus pathogen. Thus, immune protection against FMDV must use mechanisms other than the direct neutralization of virus infectivity by antibody. Complement did not increase the virus neutralization titre of the MAb, but pepsin digestion of the MAb abrogated the enhanced in vivo protection over in vitro neutralization, with little effect on their capacity to neutralize virus infectivity. It is therefore likely that opsonization to a minimum affinity, and subsequent rapid phagocytosis, play a major role in the immune defence against FMDV. This is discussed in terms of the natural host for FMDV and the induction of immunological protection.

Full text

PDF
421

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abu Elzein E. M., Crowther J. R. Enzyme-labelled immunosorbent assay techniques in foot-and-mouth disease virus research. J Hyg (Lond) 1978 Jun;80(3):391–399. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400024840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BACHRACH H. L., TRAUTMAN R., BREESE S. S., Jr CHEMICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF VIRTUALLY PURE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS. Am J Vet Res. 1964 Mar;25:333–342. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. BROWN F., CARTWRIGHT B. PURIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS. Nature. 1963 Sep 21;199:1168–1170. doi: 10.1038/1991168a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cowan K. M. Antibody response to viral antigens. Adv Immunol. 1973;17:195–253. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60733-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cunha R. G. Comparison of Serum Protection Tests in Guinea-pigs and Mice for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Antibody Evaluation. Can J Comp Med Vet Sci. 1963 Feb;27(2):42–44. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Knudsen R. C., Groocock C. M., Andersen A. A. Protective role of foot-and-mouth disease virus antibody in vitro and in vivo in guinea-pigs. J Gen Virol. 1983 Feb;64(Pt 2):341–348. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-64-2-341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. MACKOWIAK C., LANG R., FONTAINE J., CAMAND R., PETERMANN H. G. [Relation between the titer of neutralizing antibodies and the protection of animals following anti-aphthous vaccination]. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1962 Aug;103:252–261. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McCullough K. C., Butcher R. Monoclonal antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus 146S and 12S particles. Arch Virol. 1982;74(1):1–9. doi: 10.1007/BF01320777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McCullough K. C., Crowther J. R., Butcher R. N. A liquid-phase ELISA and its use in the identification of epitopes on foot-and-mouth disease virus antigens. J Virol Methods. 1985 Aug;11(4):329–338. doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(85)90026-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McCullough K. C., Crowther J. R., Butcher R. N. Alteration in antibody reactivity with foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) 146S antigen before and after binding to a solid phase or complexing with specific antibody. J Immunol Methods. 1985 Sep 3;82(1):91–100. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(85)90228-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McCullough K. C. Monoclonal antibodies: implications for virology. Brief review. Arch Virol. 1986;87(1-2):1–36. doi: 10.1007/BF01310540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McCullough K. C., Parkinson D. The standardization of a 'spot-test' ELISA for the rapid screening of sera and hybridoma cell products I. The determination of the optimum buffering system. J Biol Stand. 1984 Jan;12(1):67–74. doi: 10.1016/s0092-1157(84)80022-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McCullough K. C., Parkinson D. The standardization of a 'spot-test' ELISA for the rapid screening of sera and hybridoma cell products II. The determination of binding capacity, binding ratio and coefficient of variation of different ELISA plates in sandwich and indirect ELISA. J Biol Stand. 1984 Jan;12(1):75–86. doi: 10.1016/s0092-1157(84)80023-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. SKINNER H. H. Propagation of strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus in unweaned white mice. Proc R Soc Med. 1951 Dec;44(12):1041–1044. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Trautman R., Bennett C. E. Relationship between virus neutralization and serum protection bioassays for IgG and IgM antibodies to foot-and-mouth disease virus. J Gen Virol. 1979 Mar;42(3):457–466. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-42-3-457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Turner M. W., Bennich H. Subfragments from the Fc fragment of human immunoglobulin G. Isolation and physicochemical charaterization. Biochem J. 1968 Mar;107(2):171–178. doi: 10.1042/bj1070171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Immunology are provided here courtesy of British Society for Immunology

RESOURCES