Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory

Autores
Paton, D.J.; Reeve, R.; Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria; Ludi, A.
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines must be carefully selected and their application closely monitored to optimise their effectiveness. This review covers serological techniques for FMD vaccine quality control, including potency testing, vaccine matching and post-vaccination monitoring. It also discusses alternative laboratory procedures, such as antigen quantification and nucleotide sequencing, and briefly compares the approaches for FMD with those for measuring protection against influenza virus, where humoral immunity is also important. Serology is widely used to predict the protection afforded by vaccines and has great practical utility but also limitations. Animals differ in their responses to vaccines and in the protective mechanisms that they develop. Antibodies have a variety of properties and tests differ in what they measure. Antibody-virus interactions may vary between virus serotypes and strains and protection may be affected by the vaccination regime and the nature and timing of field virus challenge. Finally, tests employing biological reagents are difficult to standardise, whilst cross-protection data needed for test calibration and validation are scarce. All of this is difficult to reconcile with the desire for simple and universal criteria and thresholds for evaluating vaccines and vaccination responses and means that oversimplification of test procedures and their interpretation can lead to poor predictions. A holistic approach is therefore recommended, considering multiple sources of field, experimental and laboratory data. New antibody avidity and isotype tests seem promising alternatives to evaluate cross-protective, post-vaccination serological responses, taking account of vaccine potency as well as match. After choosing appropriate serological tests or test combinations and cut-offs, results should be interpreted cautiously and in context. Since opportunities for experimental challenge studies of cross-protection are limited and the approaches incompletely reflect real life, more field studies are needed to quantify cross-protection and its correlation to in vitro measurements.
Fil: Paton, D.J.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino Unido
Fil: Reeve, R.. University of Glasgow; Reino Unido
Fil: Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Gastronómicas. Instituto de Virología E Innovaciones Tecnológicas. - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Virología e Innovaciones Tecnológicas; Argentina
Fil: Ludi, A.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino Unido
Materia
FMD
PROTECTION
QUALITY CONTROL
SELECTION
SEROLOGY
VACCINE
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123796

id CONICETDig_a212293006cd713372c374a45f9ca8f1
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123796
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratoryPaton, D.J.Reeve, R.Capozzo, Alejandra VictoriaLudi, A.FMDPROTECTIONQUALITY CONTROLSELECTIONSEROLOGYVACCINEhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/4.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines must be carefully selected and their application closely monitored to optimise their effectiveness. This review covers serological techniques for FMD vaccine quality control, including potency testing, vaccine matching and post-vaccination monitoring. It also discusses alternative laboratory procedures, such as antigen quantification and nucleotide sequencing, and briefly compares the approaches for FMD with those for measuring protection against influenza virus, where humoral immunity is also important. Serology is widely used to predict the protection afforded by vaccines and has great practical utility but also limitations. Animals differ in their responses to vaccines and in the protective mechanisms that they develop. Antibodies have a variety of properties and tests differ in what they measure. Antibody-virus interactions may vary between virus serotypes and strains and protection may be affected by the vaccination regime and the nature and timing of field virus challenge. Finally, tests employing biological reagents are difficult to standardise, whilst cross-protection data needed for test calibration and validation are scarce. All of this is difficult to reconcile with the desire for simple and universal criteria and thresholds for evaluating vaccines and vaccination responses and means that oversimplification of test procedures and their interpretation can lead to poor predictions. A holistic approach is therefore recommended, considering multiple sources of field, experimental and laboratory data. New antibody avidity and isotype tests seem promising alternatives to evaluate cross-protective, post-vaccination serological responses, taking account of vaccine potency as well as match. After choosing appropriate serological tests or test combinations and cut-offs, results should be interpreted cautiously and in context. Since opportunities for experimental challenge studies of cross-protection are limited and the approaches incompletely reflect real life, more field studies are needed to quantify cross-protection and its correlation to in vitro measurements.Fil: Paton, D.J.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino UnidoFil: Reeve, R.. University of Glasgow; Reino UnidoFil: Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Gastronómicas. Instituto de Virología E Innovaciones Tecnológicas. - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Virología e Innovaciones Tecnológicas; ArgentinaFil: Ludi, A.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino UnidoElsevier2019-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/123796Paton, D.J.; Reeve, R.; Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria; Ludi, A.; Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory; Elsevier; Vaccine; 37; 37; 8-2019; 5515-55240264-410XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.102info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T15:34:21Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123796instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 15:34:21.436CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
title Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
spellingShingle Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
Paton, D.J.
FMD
PROTECTION
QUALITY CONTROL
SELECTION
SEROLOGY
VACCINE
title_short Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
title_full Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
title_fullStr Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
title_full_unstemmed Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
title_sort Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Paton, D.J.
Reeve, R.
Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria
Ludi, A.
author Paton, D.J.
author_facet Paton, D.J.
Reeve, R.
Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria
Ludi, A.
author_role author
author2 Reeve, R.
Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria
Ludi, A.
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv FMD
PROTECTION
QUALITY CONTROL
SELECTION
SEROLOGY
VACCINE
topic FMD
PROTECTION
QUALITY CONTROL
SELECTION
SEROLOGY
VACCINE
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines must be carefully selected and their application closely monitored to optimise their effectiveness. This review covers serological techniques for FMD vaccine quality control, including potency testing, vaccine matching and post-vaccination monitoring. It also discusses alternative laboratory procedures, such as antigen quantification and nucleotide sequencing, and briefly compares the approaches for FMD with those for measuring protection against influenza virus, where humoral immunity is also important. Serology is widely used to predict the protection afforded by vaccines and has great practical utility but also limitations. Animals differ in their responses to vaccines and in the protective mechanisms that they develop. Antibodies have a variety of properties and tests differ in what they measure. Antibody-virus interactions may vary between virus serotypes and strains and protection may be affected by the vaccination regime and the nature and timing of field virus challenge. Finally, tests employing biological reagents are difficult to standardise, whilst cross-protection data needed for test calibration and validation are scarce. All of this is difficult to reconcile with the desire for simple and universal criteria and thresholds for evaluating vaccines and vaccination responses and means that oversimplification of test procedures and their interpretation can lead to poor predictions. A holistic approach is therefore recommended, considering multiple sources of field, experimental and laboratory data. New antibody avidity and isotype tests seem promising alternatives to evaluate cross-protective, post-vaccination serological responses, taking account of vaccine potency as well as match. After choosing appropriate serological tests or test combinations and cut-offs, results should be interpreted cautiously and in context. Since opportunities for experimental challenge studies of cross-protection are limited and the approaches incompletely reflect real life, more field studies are needed to quantify cross-protection and its correlation to in vitro measurements.
Fil: Paton, D.J.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino Unido
Fil: Reeve, R.. University of Glasgow; Reino Unido
Fil: Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigación En Ciencias Veterinarias y Gastronómicas. Instituto de Virología E Innovaciones Tecnológicas. - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Virología e Innovaciones Tecnológicas; Argentina
Fil: Ludi, A.. The Pirbright Institute; Reino Unido
description Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines must be carefully selected and their application closely monitored to optimise their effectiveness. This review covers serological techniques for FMD vaccine quality control, including potency testing, vaccine matching and post-vaccination monitoring. It also discusses alternative laboratory procedures, such as antigen quantification and nucleotide sequencing, and briefly compares the approaches for FMD with those for measuring protection against influenza virus, where humoral immunity is also important. Serology is widely used to predict the protection afforded by vaccines and has great practical utility but also limitations. Animals differ in their responses to vaccines and in the protective mechanisms that they develop. Antibodies have a variety of properties and tests differ in what they measure. Antibody-virus interactions may vary between virus serotypes and strains and protection may be affected by the vaccination regime and the nature and timing of field virus challenge. Finally, tests employing biological reagents are difficult to standardise, whilst cross-protection data needed for test calibration and validation are scarce. All of this is difficult to reconcile with the desire for simple and universal criteria and thresholds for evaluating vaccines and vaccination responses and means that oversimplification of test procedures and their interpretation can lead to poor predictions. A holistic approach is therefore recommended, considering multiple sources of field, experimental and laboratory data. New antibody avidity and isotype tests seem promising alternatives to evaluate cross-protective, post-vaccination serological responses, taking account of vaccine potency as well as match. After choosing appropriate serological tests or test combinations and cut-offs, results should be interpreted cautiously and in context. Since opportunities for experimental challenge studies of cross-protection are limited and the approaches incompletely reflect real life, more field studies are needed to quantify cross-protection and its correlation to in vitro measurements.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-08
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/123796
Paton, D.J.; Reeve, R.; Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria; Ludi, A.; Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory; Elsevier; Vaccine; 37; 37; 8-2019; 5515-5524
0264-410X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/123796
identifier_str_mv Paton, D.J.; Reeve, R.; Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria; Ludi, A.; Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory; Elsevier; Vaccine; 37; 37; 8-2019; 5515-5524
0264-410X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.102
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846083472250109952
score 13.22299