Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Hygiene logoLink to The Journal of Hygiene
. 1986 Jun;96(3):501–511. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400066304

Humoral response of pregnant sows to foot and mouth disease vaccination.

M J Francis, L Black
PMCID: PMC2129688  PMID: 3016077

Abstract

Four groups of sows were inoculated, either once or twice, with O1BFS 1860 foot and mouth disease oil-emulsion vaccine during pregnancy and samples of serum, for analysis, were collected at intervals for greater than 300 days. The pregnant sows responded well to vaccination regardless of their state of gestation. Single vaccination produced protective levels of antibody (greater than 1.53 log10SN50) in 3 out of 4 sows while double vaccination produced protective levels in all 6 sows tested. Anti-FMD IgM antibodies could be detected for 40-60 days after vaccination or revaccination. Anti-FMD IgG antibodies appeared within 10 days of vaccination and persisted, in each sow, for the duration of the study. The anti-FMD IgA response observed was less easy to characterize due to significant animal to animal variation. Although there was no evidence of a fall in the neutralizing antibody titres over one year post vaccination the anti-FMD IgG antibody population did show signs of a change in its heterogeneity and avidity.

Full text

PDF
501

Selected References

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

  1. Anderson E. C., Masters R. C., Mowat G. N. Immune response of pigs to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Response to emulsion vaccines. Res Vet Sci. 1971 Jul;12(4):342–350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blank S. E., Leslie G. A., Clem L. W. Antibody affinity and valence in viral neutralization. J Immunol. 1972 Mar;108(3):665–673. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burrows R. The infectivity assay of foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs. J Hyg (Lond) 1966 Dec;64(4):419–429. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400040729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Finkelstein M. S., Uhr J. W. Antibody formation. V. The avidity of gamma-M and gamma-G guinea pig antibodies to bacteriophage phi-x 174. J Immunol. 1966 Nov;97(5):565–576. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Francis M. J., Black L. Antibody response in pig nasal fluid and serum following foot-and-mouth disease infection or vaccination. J Hyg (Lond) 1983 Oct;91(2):329–334. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400060344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Francis M. J., Black L. Effect of the sow vaccination regimen on the decay rate of maternally derived foot-and-mouth disease antibodies in piglets. Res Vet Sci. 1984 Jul;37(1):72–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Francis M. J., Black L. The effect of vaccination regimen on the transfer of foot and mouth disease antibodies from the sow to her piglets. J Hyg (Lond) 1984 Aug;93(1):123–131. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400061003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Francis M. J., Ouldridge E. J., Black L. Antibody response in bovine pharyngeal fluid following foot-and-mouth disease vaccination and, or, exposure to live virus. Res Vet Sci. 1983 Sep;35(2):206–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Graves J. H., Cowan K. M., Trautman R. Immunochemical studies of foot-and-mouth disease. II. Characterization of RNA-free viruslike particles. Virology. 1968 Feb;34(2):269–274. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(68)90236-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hingley P. J., Ouldridge E. J. The use of a logistic model for the quantitative interpretation of indirect sandwich enzyme labelled immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for antibodies and antigens in foot and mouth disease. Comput Biol Med. 1985;15(3):137–152. doi: 10.1016/0010-4825(85)90027-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McKercher P. D., Giordano A. R. Foot-and-mouth disease in swine. I. The immune response of swine of chemically-treated and non-treated foot-and-mouth disease virus. Arch Gesamte Virusforsch. 1967;20(1):39–53. doi: 10.1007/BF01245768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McKercher P. D., Giordano A. R. Foot-and-mouth disease in swine. II. Some physical-chemical characteristics of antibodies produced by chemically-treated and non-treated foot-and-mouth disease virus. Arch Gesamte Virusforsch. 1967;20(1):54–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ouldridge E. J., Francis M. J., Black L. Antibody response of pigs to foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccine: the antibody classes involved. Res Vet Sci. 1982 May;32(3):327–331. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. SVEHAG S. E. THE FORMATION AND PROPERTIES OF POLIOVIRUS NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY. 5. CHANGES IN THE QUALITY OF 19S AND 7S RABBIT ANTIBODIES FOLLOWING IMMUNIZATION. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1965;64:103–118. doi: 10.1111/apm.1965.64.1.103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Webster R. G. The immune response to influenza virus. 3. Changes in the avidity and specificity of early IgM and IgG antibodies. Immunology. 1968 Jan;14(1):39–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wittmann G., Bauer K., Mussgay M. Essais de vaccination de porcs avec des vaccins à base de virus, aphteux inactivé. I. Essais avec du virus O inactivé par l'hydroxylamine, le formol, la chaleur et le pH. Bull Off Int Epizoot. 1969 Mar-Apr;71(3-4):351–379. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Hygiene are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES