Key result
In vitro methods for evaluating foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strains are not conclusive, highlighting the need to use well-established strains with broad coverage during emergencies.
Why the study?
Selection of foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccine strains is challenging due to incomplete intraserotype protection, and limitations exist in currently used in vitro methods to assess protective capacity.
Current in vitro methods for selecting foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strains are limited, suggesting the use of well-established strains with broad coverage during emergencies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluation of FMD vaccine strains leaves open optimal selection criteria; targeted studies needed to refine cross-protection data.
Introduction: Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus is regarded as the most effective way to prevent disease. Selection of appropriate vaccine strains is challenging due to lack of cross-protection between serotypes and incomplete protection between some strains within a serotype. Vaccine effectiveness can be affected by vaccine formulation, vaccination approaches, and also by emerging field variants. Therefore, a precise evaluation of the protective capacity of the selected vaccine virus is essential.Areas covered: This article discusses the limitations of currently in use in vitro methods to assess the protective capacity of vaccine strains. It includes the assessment of well-established South American vaccine strains, O1/Campos and A24/Cruzeiro, against outbreaks/emergencies in the continent, as well as against recent isolates from East and Southeast Asia.Expert opinion: In vitro methods, and particularly r1 values, used to evaluate the protective capacity of vaccine strains are not conclusive and do not cover the variety of field scenarios. At present, an option when facing emergencies could be to use well-established vaccine strains with broad antigenic/immunogenic coverage, including conditions that lead to increased coverage such as vaccine formulations and vaccination schemes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bergmann et al. (2021) conducted a review in Foot-and-mouth disease. Foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccines was evaluated. In vitro methods for evaluating foot-and-mouth disease vaccine strains are not conclusive, highlighting the need to use well-established strains with broad coverage during emergencies.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: