Why the study?
Does vaccination prevent clinical disease and infection following direct contact with FMDV-infected buffalo in cattle and buffalo?
Does vaccination prevent clinical disease and infection following direct contact with FMDV-infected buffalo in cattle and buffalo?
Vaccination protects cattle and buffalo from clinical foot-and-mouth disease following direct contact with infected buffalo, though it does not prevent infection.
May support FMD vaccine use to limit clinical disease in livestock; leaves open sterilizing immunity and transmission control.
This study investigated the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) from experimentally infected Indian buffalo to in-contact naïve and vaccinated cattle and buffalo. In each of six rooms, two donor buffalo that had been inoculated with FMDV were housed for five days with four recipient animals, comprising one vaccinated buffalo, one vaccinated calf, one unvaccinated buffalo and one unvaccinated calf. Vaccination was carried out with current Indian vaccine strain (O/IND/R2/75) and challenged on 28 days post-vaccination with an antigenically similar strain (O/HAS/34/05). All 12 donor buffalo and the six unvaccinated cattle and six unvaccinated calves developed clinical signs of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). In contrast, all six vaccinated cattle (100%) and four out of six vaccinated buffalo (66.6%) were protected from disease but all became infected with FMDV. This confirms that buffalo have the potential to spread FMD by direct contact and that vaccination can block this spread. The numbers of animals in the study were too small to determine if the differences in clinical protection afforded by vaccination of cattle and buffalo are significant and warrant a different dose regime.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madhanmohan et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: