Why the study?
The study was conducted to analyze the relationship between homologous and heterologous serological titers of immunized pigs and their protection statuses against foot-and-mouth disease virus challenges.
Does serological virus neutralization titer predict homologous and heterologous protection status against FMD virus challenge in vaccinated pigs?
Does serological virus neutralization titer predict homologous and heterologous protection status against FMD virus challenge in vaccinated pigs?
Serological virus neutralization titers at 21 and 28 days post-vaccination are useful for predicting homologous and heterologous protection statuses in FMD-vaccinated pigs.
May inform FMD vaccine correlate-of-protection development in pigs; leaves open need for validation in larger trials.
To analyze the relationship between homologous and heterologous serological titers of immunized pigs and their protection statuses against FMD virus challenges, in the present study, the correlation between the virus neutralization titers at 21 and 28 dpv and the protection statuses at 28 dpv against challenge with FMD virus was analyzed using data sets comprising five different combinations of homologous or heterologous challenge experiments in pigs vaccinated with type O (n = 96), A (n = 69), and Asia 1 (n = 74). As a result, the experiments were divided into three groups (21D-1, 21D-2, and 21D-3) in the 21-dpv model and two groups (28D-1 and 28D-2) in the 28-dpv model. Each response curve of groups 21D-1 and 21D-2 in the 21-dpv model was very similar to each curve of groups 28D-1 and 28D-2 in the 28-dpv model, respectively, even though there was an exceptional extra group (21D-3) in the 21-dpv model. The average titers estimating 0.75 probability of protection ranged from 1.06 to 1.62 log10 in the 21-dpv model and from 1.26 to 1.64 log10 in the 28-dpv model. In summary, we demonstrated that the serological method is useful for predicting the homologous and heterologous protection statuses of vaccinated pigs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: