European Serotype PRRSV Vaccine Protects Against European Serotype Challenge Whereas an American Serotype Vaccine Does Not
- 40 Downloads
Pigs were either vaccinated with an American serotype Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) vaccine or with a European serotype vaccine. A control group of was left unvaccinated. At four weeks after vaccination the PRRSV-spe-cific antibody titres were determined and one third of each group was challenged with a Spanish, one third with a German and one third with a Dutch PRRSV wild type strain. The serological responses, measured at 4 weeks after vaccination, confirmed that both vaccines were of a different serotype. It was demonstrated that vaccination with an American serotype vaccine slightly reduced the amount of viraemia after challenge with European PRRSV wild type strains. Only after challenge with the Spanish PRRSV strain a moderate, and statistically significant, reduction in viraemia was observed. This is in contrast to vaccination with a European vaccine strain, where viraemia was completely suppressed after challenge with the German PRRSV isolate and almost completely suppressed after challenge with the Spanish and Dutch isolates.
KeywordsRespiratory Syndrome Virus Serotype Virus Reproduction Ratio Reporter Virus Serotype Vaccine
- Becker N.g., 1989, Analysis of infectious disease data. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London, New York.Google Scholar
- Meng, X.-J., Paul, P.S., Halbur, P.G., and Lum, M.A., 1994, Phylogenetic analyses of the putative M (ORF 6) and N (ORF 7) genes of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV); implications for the existence of two genotypes of PRRSV in the U.S.A. and Europe, Arch. Virol. 140: 745–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Suarez, P., Zardoya, R., Jesus-Martin, M., Prieto, C., Dopazo, J., Solana, A., and Castro, J.M., 1996, Phylogenic relationships of European strains of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) inferred from DNA sequences of putative orf-5 and orf-7 genes. Virus Res. 42: 159–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar