June 1, 1963Journal of HygieneOpen Access

Antigenic differences between strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus of type SAT 1

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Population

Devon steers, guinea-pigs, and 4-6-day-old albino mice of the Pirbright 'P' strain

Comparison

Formalin-inactivated vaccines of foot-and-mouth… vs Unvaccinated controls and heterologous strain…

Design

Preclinical

Follow-up

3 weeks (22 days) between vaccination and challenge

Authors

NHN. St. G. HyslopThe Pirbright Institute JDJohn R. DavieBechtel (United States)SCSally P. CarterKettering University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports strain-matched FMD vaccination in cattle; leaves open broader cross-protection research.

Structured PICO

Population

Devon steers (about 18 months old), guinea-pigs (about 500 g), and 4-6-day-old albino mice of the Pirbright 'P' strain

Intervention

Formalin-inactivated vaccines of foot-and-mouth disease virus type SAT 1 (strains RV 11 and SA 13/61)

Comparator

Unvaccinated controls and heterologous strain challenge

Outcome

Resistance to experimental infection (development of secondary lesions/generalization) and serum-neutralizing antibody titers

Vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease virus type SAT 1 provide strong homologous protection but poor heterologous protection, highlighting the importance of strain-specific vaccination.

Limitations

Shortage of cattle accommodation precluded further examination by cross-protection tests

Cite This Study

Hyslop et al. (1963) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6f5703f44fa9f079dcc3a4 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022172400020933

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Antigenic differences between strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus of type SAT 1

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Antigenic differences between strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus of type SAT 1

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider