|
|
|
|
|
| Influence of PPV, PRV and PRRSV on Efficacy of the Lapinized Hog Cholera Vaccine and Pathogenicity of Classical swine fever virus |
| NING Yi-bao, ZHAO Yun, WANG Qin, FAN Xue-zheng, QIN Yu-ming, ZHANG Guang-chuan, XU Lu, QIU Hui-shen, WANG Zai-shi, SONG Li, SHEN Qing-chun, ZHAO Qi-zu |
| China National Classical Swine Fever Reference Laboratory/China Institute of Veterinary Drug Control, Beijing 100081, P.R.China |
|
|
|
摘要 Classical swine fever caused by Classical swine fever virus (CSFV) is a serious problem for swine industries in developing countries, which successful control of the disease have been relying on vaccination. However, classical swine fever still occurs in some immunized swine herds for various reasons. In this study, we conducted animal experiments to examine the influence of single or mixed infection with Porcine parvo virus (PPV), Pseudorabies virus (PRV) and Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) on the protective immunity induced by the Lapinized hog cholera virus (HCLV) vaccine and the pathogenicity of CSFV. In experiment 1, pigs were first inoculated with PPV, PRV or PRRSV, then immunized with HCLV, and finally challenged with a highly virulent CSFV Shimen strain. All of the pigs immunized with HCLV survived after the challenge, while all of the pigs in the non-immunized control group died after the challenge. The pigs in the group immunized with HCLV did not show any clinical symptoms of classical swine fever and were negative with CSFV after the challenge. The pigs infected with the non-CSFV before HCLV immunization did not display any clinical symptoms after the challenge with CSFV Shiman strain, but 11 of the 12 pigs were positive with CSFV. In experiment 2, pre-infections with PPV, PRV, and PRRSV were followed by inoculation with a low-virulence CSFV strain (CSFV 39), and then the pigs were challenged with the CSFV Shimen strain. Infections by either PPV, PRV or PRRSV did not enhance the virulence of CSFV-39, but pigs infected by a mixture of the 3 viruses developed clinical symptoms after inoculation with CSFV-39. The mixed infection also increased mortality caused by the challenge with the CSFV Shimen strain. Together, these results showed PPV, PRV and PRRSV infections in pigs can reduce the efficacy of the HCLV vaccine and enhance the pathogenicity of CSFV, which may partly explain the immunization failure against CSFV in some swine herds.
Abstract Classical swine fever caused by Classical swine fever virus (CSFV) is a serious problem for swine industries in developing countries, which successful control of the disease have been relying on vaccination. However, classical swine fever still occurs in some immunized swine herds for various reasons. In this study, we conducted animal experiments to examine the influence of single or mixed infection with Porcine parvo virus (PPV), Pseudorabies virus (PRV) and Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) on the protective immunity induced by the Lapinized hog cholera virus (HCLV) vaccine and the pathogenicity of CSFV. In experiment 1, pigs were first inoculated with PPV, PRV or PRRSV, then immunized with HCLV, and finally challenged with a highly virulent CSFV Shimen strain. All of the pigs immunized with HCLV survived after the challenge, while all of the pigs in the non-immunized control group died after the challenge. The pigs in the group immunized with HCLV did not show any clinical symptoms of classical swine fever and were negative with CSFV after the challenge. The pigs infected with the non-CSFV before HCLV immunization did not display any clinical symptoms after the challenge with CSFV Shiman strain, but 11 of the 12 pigs were positive with CSFV. In experiment 2, pre-infections with PPV, PRV, and PRRSV were followed by inoculation with a low-virulence CSFV strain (CSFV 39), and then the pigs were challenged with the CSFV Shimen strain. Infections by either PPV, PRV or PRRSV did not enhance the virulence of CSFV-39, but pigs infected by a mixture of the 3 viruses developed clinical symptoms after inoculation with CSFV-39. The mixed infection also increased mortality caused by the challenge with the CSFV Shimen strain. Together, these results showed PPV, PRV and PRRSV infections in pigs can reduce the efficacy of the HCLV vaccine and enhance the pathogenicity of CSFV, which may partly explain the immunization failure against CSFV in some swine herds.
|
|
Received: 08 June 2011
Accepted:
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence NING Yi-bao, Tel/Fax: +86-10-62103674, E-mail: ningyibao@ivdc.gov.cn
|
Cite this article:
NING Yi-bao, ZHAO Yun, WANG Qin, FAN Xue-zheng, QIN Yu-ming, ZHANG Guang-chuan, XU Lu, QIU Hui-shen, WANG Zai-shi, SONG Li, SHEN Qing-chun, ZHAO Qi-zu.
2012.
Influence of PPV, PRV and PRRSV on Efficacy of the Lapinized Hog Cholera Vaccine and Pathogenicity of Classical swine fever virus. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(11): 1892-1897.
|
| [1]Albina E, Mesplede A, Chenut G, Le Potier M F, BourbaoG, Le Gal S, Leforban Y. 2000. A serological survey onclassical swine fever (CSF), aujeszky’s disease (AD)and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome(PRRS) virus infections in French wild boars from 1991to 1998. Veterinary Microbiology, 77, 43-57[2]China Regulations of Animal Biological Pharmaceuticals.2000. Classical Swine Fever Vaccine, Live.Fujisaki Y, Morimoto T, Sugimori T. 1975. Experimentalinfection of pigs with porcine parvovirus. NationalInsitution of Animal Health Quarterly (Tokyo), 22, 205-206[3]Li H, Yang H. 2003. Infection of porcine reproductive andrespiratory syndrome virus suppresses the antibodyresponse to classical swine fever virus vaccination.Veterinary Microbiology, 95, 295-301[4]Lin S, Su D, Hong Z H. 1997. Diagnosis and control ofmixed infection with porcine reproductive-respiratorysyndrome (PRRS) and hog cholera (HC). Progress inVeterinary Medicine, 18, 30-32 (in Chinese)[5]MoennigV, Floegel-NiesmannG,Greiser-Wilke I. 2003.Clinicalsigns and epidemiology of classical swine fever: a reviewof new knowledge. Veterinary Journal, 165, 11-20[6]Ning Y B, Wang Q, Qin H S, Zhang G C, Song L, Zhao Y,Wang Z S, Sheng Q C. 2004. Influence of persistentCSFV infection on sows reproduction and HCLV immuneefficacy in piglets. Chinese Journal of VeterinaryScience, 35, 449-453 (in Chinese)[7]OIE. 2011. OIE listed diseases, swine diseases.Ribbens S, Dewulf J, Koenen F, Laevens H, de Kruif A.2004. Transmission of classical swine fever. A review.Veterinary Q, 26, 146-155[8]van Reeth K, Nauwynck H, PensaertM. 2001. Clinical effectsof experimental dual infections with porcine reproductiveand respiratory syndrome virus followed by swineinfluenza virus in conventional and colostrum-deprivedpigs. Journal Veterinary Medicine (B, InfectiousDiseases and Veterinary Public Health), 48, 283-292[9]Shibata I, Yazawa S, Ono M, Okuda Y. 2003. Experimentaldual infection of specific pathogen-free pigs with porcinereproductive and respiratory syndrome virus andpseudorabies virus. Journal Veterinary Medicine (B,Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health), 50,14-19[10]Vandeputte J, Too H L, Ng F K, Chen C, Chai K K, Liao GA.2001. Adsorption of colostral antibodies againstclassical swine fever, persistence of maternal antibodies,and effect on response to vaccination in baby pigs.American Journal Veterinary Research, 62, 1805-1811[11]Zhao Y, Ning Y B. 2004. Advance of research on classicalswine fever vaccine. Progress in Veterinary Medicine,25, 39-42 (in Chinese)[12]Zhao Y, Ning Y B, Wang Z S. 2003. Induced verticaltransmission of field hog cholera virus in experimentalpigs. Chinese Journal of Veterinary Science, 23, 234-236(in Chinese)[13]Zhao Y, Zhang G C, Qin Y M. 2003. Detection of porcinereproductive and respiratiory syndrome virus by nestRT-PCR. Microbiology, 30, 77-80. (in Chinese) |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
