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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Attili, Anna-Rita, Colognato, Renato, Preziuso, Silvia, Moriconi, Martina, Valentini, Silvia, Petrini, Stefano, De Mia, Gian Mario, Cuteri, Vincenzo
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