Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines

Autores
Gnazzo, Victoria; Quattrocchi, Valeria; Soria, Ivana; Pereyra, Erica Vanesa; Langellotti, Cecilia Ana; Pedemonte, Andrea; López, Virginia; Marangunich, Laura An; Zamorano, Patricia Ines
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión aceptada
Descripción
Protection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines at the batch level. In this report, a mouse model was assessed as an alternative efficacy control for FMDV vaccines. To this aim, groups of cattle (n = 18) and BALB/c mice (n = 16) were inoculated with commercial FMDV vaccines and bleedings were performed 60 days post vaccination (dpv) in cattle and 21 dpv in mice. Specific FMDV antibody titres were measured in both species by a standardized lpELISA. A statistically significant association between antibody levels in cattle and mice has already been demonstrated. However, some vaccines have been misclassified since they were considered protective based on lpELISA results but did not induce good protection in cattle upon challenge. For this reason, other immunological parameters were evaluated to improve the prediction of protection in mice, without the need of using infective virus. In addition, antibody titres by lpELISA, the IgG2b/IgG1 isotype ratio and the Avidity Index were identified as good predictors, resulting in an optimal predictive model of protection. This mouse model could be a simple and economic alternative for testing FMD vaccines since the disadvantages of high costs and facility requirements associated with the use of large animals are overcome.
Instituto de Virología
Fil: Gnazzo, Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Quattrocchi, Valeria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Ivana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Pereyra, Erica Vanesa. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Langellotti, Cecilia Ana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Pedemonte, Andrea. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: López, Virginia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Marangunich, Laura An. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Zamorano, Patricia Ines. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fuente
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases (First published: 22 April 2020)
Materia
Virus Fiebre Aftosa
Enfermedades de los Animales
Vacuna
Ratón
Modelos Animales
Aphthovirus
Animal Diseases
Vaccines
Mice
Animal Models
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/7741
Acceder
id INTADig_c1a42807e2be1f1f59eb912721cf09d5
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/7741
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccinesGnazzo, VictoriaQuattrocchi, ValeriaSoria, IvanaPereyra, Erica VanesaLangellotti, Cecilia AnaPedemonte, AndreaLópez, VirginiaMarangunich, Laura AnZamorano, Patricia InesVirus Fiebre AftosaEnfermedades de los AnimalesVacunaRatónModelos AnimalesAphthovirusAnimal DiseasesVaccinesMiceAnimal ModelsProtection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines at the batch level. In this report, a mouse model was assessed as an alternative efficacy control for FMDV vaccines. To this aim, groups of cattle (n = 18) and BALB/c mice (n = 16) were inoculated with commercial FMDV vaccines and bleedings were performed 60 days post vaccination (dpv) in cattle and 21 dpv in mice. Specific FMDV antibody titres were measured in both species by a standardized lpELISA. A statistically significant association between antibody levels in cattle and mice has already been demonstrated. However, some vaccines have been misclassified since they were considered protective based on lpELISA results but did not induce good protection in cattle upon challenge. For this reason, other immunological parameters were evaluated to improve the prediction of protection in mice, without the need of using infective virus. In addition, antibody titres by lpELISA, the IgG2b/IgG1 isotype ratio and the Avidity Index were identified as good predictors, resulting in an optimal predictive model of protection. This mouse model could be a simple and economic alternative for testing FMD vaccines since the disadvantages of high costs and facility requirements associated with the use of large animals are overcome.Instituto de VirologíaFil: Gnazzo, Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.Fil: Quattrocchi, Valeria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; ArgentinaFil: Soria, Ivana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; ArgentinaFil: Pereyra, Erica Vanesa. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; ArgentinaFil: Langellotti, Cecilia Ana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.Fil: Pedemonte, Andrea. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.Fil: López, Virginia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.Fil: Marangunich, Laura An. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.Fil: Zamorano, Patricia Ines. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; ArgentinaWiley2020-08-19T17:17:26Z2020-08-19T17:17:26Z2020-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7741https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tbed.135911865-16741865-1682https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13591Transboundary and Emerging Diseases (First published: 22 April 2020)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-09-29T13:45:00Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/7741instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-29 13:45:00.829INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
title Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
spellingShingle Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
Gnazzo, Victoria
Virus Fiebre Aftosa
Enfermedades de los Animales
Vacuna
Ratón
Modelos Animales
Aphthovirus
Animal Diseases
Vaccines
Mice
Animal Models
title_short Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
title_full Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
title_fullStr Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
title_full_unstemmed Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
title_sort Mouse model as an efficacy test for foot‐and‐mouth disease vaccines
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Gnazzo, Victoria
Quattrocchi, Valeria
Soria, Ivana
Pereyra, Erica Vanesa
Langellotti, Cecilia Ana
Pedemonte, Andrea
López, Virginia
Marangunich, Laura An
Zamorano, Patricia Ines
author Gnazzo, Victoria
author_facet Gnazzo, Victoria
Quattrocchi, Valeria
Soria, Ivana
Pereyra, Erica Vanesa
Langellotti, Cecilia Ana
Pedemonte, Andrea
López, Virginia
Marangunich, Laura An
Zamorano, Patricia Ines
author_role author
author2 Quattrocchi, Valeria
Soria, Ivana
Pereyra, Erica Vanesa
Langellotti, Cecilia Ana
Pedemonte, Andrea
López, Virginia
Marangunich, Laura An
Zamorano, Patricia Ines
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Virus Fiebre Aftosa
Enfermedades de los Animales
Vacuna
Ratón
Modelos Animales
Aphthovirus
Animal Diseases
Vaccines
Mice
Animal Models
topic Virus Fiebre Aftosa
Enfermedades de los Animales
Vacuna
Ratón
Modelos Animales
Aphthovirus
Animal Diseases
Vaccines
Mice
Animal Models
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Protection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines at the batch level. In this report, a mouse model was assessed as an alternative efficacy control for FMDV vaccines. To this aim, groups of cattle (n = 18) and BALB/c mice (n = 16) were inoculated with commercial FMDV vaccines and bleedings were performed 60 days post vaccination (dpv) in cattle and 21 dpv in mice. Specific FMDV antibody titres were measured in both species by a standardized lpELISA. A statistically significant association between antibody levels in cattle and mice has already been demonstrated. However, some vaccines have been misclassified since they were considered protective based on lpELISA results but did not induce good protection in cattle upon challenge. For this reason, other immunological parameters were evaluated to improve the prediction of protection in mice, without the need of using infective virus. In addition, antibody titres by lpELISA, the IgG2b/IgG1 isotype ratio and the Avidity Index were identified as good predictors, resulting in an optimal predictive model of protection. This mouse model could be a simple and economic alternative for testing FMD vaccines since the disadvantages of high costs and facility requirements associated with the use of large animals are overcome.
Instituto de Virología
Fil: Gnazzo, Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Quattrocchi, Valeria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Soria, Ivana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Pereyra, Erica Vanesa. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
Fil: Langellotti, Cecilia Ana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Pedemonte, Andrea. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: López, Virginia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Marangunich, Laura An. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina.
Fil: Zamorano, Patricia Ines. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Virología; Argentina
description Protection against foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV) has been linked to the development of a humoral response. In Argentina, the official control tests for assessing the potency of FMD vaccines are protection against podal generalization (PPG) and expected percentage of protection (EPP) curves built with quantitative data of antibodies determined by liquid‐phase blocking ELISA (lpELISA). The results of these tests are used to accept or discard vaccines at the batch level. In this report, a mouse model was assessed as an alternative efficacy control for FMDV vaccines. To this aim, groups of cattle (n = 18) and BALB/c mice (n = 16) were inoculated with commercial FMDV vaccines and bleedings were performed 60 days post vaccination (dpv) in cattle and 21 dpv in mice. Specific FMDV antibody titres were measured in both species by a standardized lpELISA. A statistically significant association between antibody levels in cattle and mice has already been demonstrated. However, some vaccines have been misclassified since they were considered protective based on lpELISA results but did not induce good protection in cattle upon challenge. For this reason, other immunological parameters were evaluated to improve the prediction of protection in mice, without the need of using infective virus. In addition, antibody titres by lpELISA, the IgG2b/IgG1 isotype ratio and the Avidity Index were identified as good predictors, resulting in an optimal predictive model of protection. This mouse model could be a simple and economic alternative for testing FMD vaccines since the disadvantages of high costs and facility requirements associated with the use of large animals are overcome.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-08-19T17:17:26Z
2020-08-19T17:17:26Z
2020-04
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7741
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tbed.13591
1865-1674
1865-1682
https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13591
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7741
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tbed.13591
https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13591
identifier_str_mv 1865-1674
1865-1682
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Transboundary and Emerging Diseases (First published: 22 April 2020)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1844619146557390848
score 12.559606

Publicaciones similares