Cargando…
Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial
EHV1 and EHV4 are the most important herpesviruses in horses. Repeated cases of abortion in mares regularly vaccinated, prompted us to investigate the immune response after vaccination with the same inactivated vaccine, but with three different protocols. Eighteen mares were chosen and randomly divi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32492841 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020268 |
_version_ | 1783557188412768256 |
---|---|
author | Attili, Anna-Rita Colognato, Renato Preziuso, Silvia Moriconi, Martina Valentini, Silvia Petrini, Stefano De Mia, Gian Mario Cuteri, Vincenzo |
author_facet | Attili, Anna-Rita Colognato, Renato Preziuso, Silvia Moriconi, Martina Valentini, Silvia Petrini, Stefano De Mia, Gian Mario Cuteri, Vincenzo |
author_sort | Attili, Anna-Rita |
collection | PubMed |
description | EHV1 and EHV4 are the most important herpesviruses in horses. Repeated cases of abortion in mares regularly vaccinated, prompted us to investigate the immune response after vaccination with the same inactivated vaccine, but with three different protocols. Eighteen mares were chosen and randomly divided in three study groups (G(1)-G(2)-G(3)) and a control group (Ctrl). For serologic and PCR investigations nasal swabs, sera and blood were collected. The protocol used in G(3) (4 doses) increased the titer recorded by ELISA and seroneutralization (SN). Poor agreement and no correlation were observed in titer values between ELISA and SN and between SN and PCR. A very weak positive correlation between ELISA and PCR was obtained. Seven out of 18 nasal swabs were positive by PCR; none showed viremia and no abortion occurred, regardless of vaccination status and despite active circulation of EHV-1 in the farm at the time of the study. The study was conducted in field conditions, in a susceptible population with a known history of infection and abortion, and among the three protocols, the one proposed in the G(1) was the least efficient while the one proposed for the G(3), seems to have induced a higher antibody titer in both SN and ELISA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7350013 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73500132020-07-22 Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial Attili, Anna-Rita Colognato, Renato Preziuso, Silvia Moriconi, Martina Valentini, Silvia Petrini, Stefano De Mia, Gian Mario Cuteri, Vincenzo Vaccines (Basel) Article EHV1 and EHV4 are the most important herpesviruses in horses. Repeated cases of abortion in mares regularly vaccinated, prompted us to investigate the immune response after vaccination with the same inactivated vaccine, but with three different protocols. Eighteen mares were chosen and randomly divided in three study groups (G(1)-G(2)-G(3)) and a control group (Ctrl). For serologic and PCR investigations nasal swabs, sera and blood were collected. The protocol used in G(3) (4 doses) increased the titer recorded by ELISA and seroneutralization (SN). Poor agreement and no correlation were observed in titer values between ELISA and SN and between SN and PCR. A very weak positive correlation between ELISA and PCR was obtained. Seven out of 18 nasal swabs were positive by PCR; none showed viremia and no abortion occurred, regardless of vaccination status and despite active circulation of EHV-1 in the farm at the time of the study. The study was conducted in field conditions, in a susceptible population with a known history of infection and abortion, and among the three protocols, the one proposed in the G(1) was the least efficient while the one proposed for the G(3), seems to have induced a higher antibody titer in both SN and ELISA. MDPI 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7350013/ /pubmed/32492841 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020268 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Attili, Anna-Rita Colognato, Renato Preziuso, Silvia Moriconi, Martina Valentini, Silvia Petrini, Stefano De Mia, Gian Mario Cuteri, Vincenzo Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title | Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full | Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_short | Evaluation of Three Different Vaccination Protocols against EHV1/EHV4 Infection in Mares: Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_sort | evaluation of three different vaccination protocols against ehv1/ehv4 infection in mares: double blind, randomized clinical trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32492841 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020268 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT attiliannarita evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT colognatorenato evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT preziusosilvia evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT moriconimartina evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT valentinisilvia evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT petrinistefano evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT demiagianmario evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial AT cuterivincenzo evaluationofthreedifferentvaccinationprotocolsagainstehv1ehv4infectioninmaresdoubleblindrandomizedclinicaltrial |