Key result
Foot and mouth disease was prevalent among livestock in Abu Dhabi, with Type O being most common, and field isolates of Asia 1 showing no antigenic relationship with the reference virus.
Observational
The study identifies the prevalent serotypes of foot and mouth disease in Abu Dhabi livestock and highlights antigenic differences from reference strains, which has implications for regional disease control.
Supports updated FMD surveillance for Type O in Abu Dhabi; leaves open vaccine strain updates based on antigenic mismatch.
The present paper describes the status of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the eastern region of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, over a three-year period from 1987 to 1989. The disease was prevalent among the various livestock populations in the study area. Type O appeared to be most prevalent followed by types A and Asia 1 which were recorded at lower incidences. Type C was not recorded during the period of study. Two isolates of each serotype were tested for antigenic relatedness to each other and to a reference virus. Both type O isolates were closely related but less related to the reference virus O1 BFS (1860). The type A isolates and the reference virus A22 IRQ 24/64 showed a similar degree of close interrelatedness. In contrast, the two Asia 1 field isolates, while being closely related, showed no antigenic relationship with the reference virus Asia 1 PAK 1/54. The possible implications of these results regarding the current situation of FMD control in the United Arab Emirates and neighbouring countries are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moustafa et al. (1993) conducted an observational in Foot and mouth disease (FMD). Foot and mouth disease serotypes was evaluated on Prevalence and antigenic relatedness of FMD serotypes. Foot and mouth disease was prevalent among livestock in Abu Dhabi, with Type O being most common, and field isolates of Asia 1 showing no antigenic relationship with the reference virus.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: