Safety and efficacy of reduced dose Brucella abortus strain- 19 vaccine in non-pregnant zebu cattle (Bos indicus) heifers

AMIT KUMAR; AMIT KUMAR VERMA; V SURYA PRASAD; K SRINIVAS; G S REDDY

doi:10.56093/ijans.v86i2.55773

Authors

AMIT KUMAR UP Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidalaya Evam Go Anushandhan Sansthan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001 India
AMIT KUMAR VERMA UP Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidalaya Evam Go Anushandhan Sansthan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001 India
V SURYA PRASAD Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad
K SRINIVAS Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad
G S REDDY Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v86i2.55773

Keywords:

Antibody response, Brucella abortus strain- 19, Brucellosis, Cell mediated immunity, Interferon-gamma assay, Reduced dose, Zebu cattle

Abstract

In India, brucellosis a re-emerging disease, is of public health and economic concern to dairy industry. Brucella abortus strain-19 vaccine is recommended as most effective vaccine for cattle and buffaloes, however application of full dose is restricted in adults due to persistence of antibody response that interfere with serological diagnosis. In the present study 120 seronegative female cattle (60 calves and 60 young heifers each in a group) were subjected for vaccination. In each age group, 40 animals were vaccinated subcutaneously with a reduced dose of B. abortus S-19 vaccine, 10 animals with standard dose and 10 animals served as controls. Animals were observed for local or systemic reactions after vaccination as well as during study period. Blood samples were collected on day 0, 21, 60, 90 post-vaccination for antibody response and cell mediated immunity (CMI). The study revealed that the reduced dose vaccine is safe with satisfactory humoral and CMI response comparable to that of the standard dose, in both the age groups of animals when administered subcutaneously. It was concluded that the B. abortus S-19 reduced dose vaccine is safe and effective in the young and non-pregnant cattle up to the age of 30 months.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alton G G, Corner L A and Plackett P. 1980. Vaccination of pregnant cows with low doses of Brucella abortus strain 19 vaccine. Australian Veterinary Journal 56: 369–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1980.tb09561.x

Beckett F W and MacDiarmid S C. 1987. Persistent serological titres following reduced dose Brucella abortus strain 19 vaccination. British Veterinary Journal 143: 477–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(87)90025-X

Beckett F W and MacDiarmid S C. 1985. The effect of reduced- dose Brucella abortus Strain- 19 vaccination in accredited dairy herds. British Veterinary Journal 141: 507–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(85)90046-6

Bradley L M. 2003. Migration and T-Lymphocyte effecter function. Current Opinion Immunology 15: 343–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-7915(03)00043-8

Caporale C, Bonfini B, Giannatale E D, Provido A D, Forcella S, Giovannini A, Tittarelli M and Scacchia M. 2010. Efficacy of Brucella abortus strain RB 51compared to the reference Brucella abortus strain 19 in water buffalo. Veterinaria Italiana 46: 13–19.

Chukwu C C. 1987. Differentiation of Brucella abortus and Yersinia enterocolitica serotype O9 infections in cattle: the use of specific lymphocyte transformation and brucellin skin tests. Veterinary Quarterly 9: 134–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1987.9694090

Colby L A, Schurig G G and Elzer P H. 2002. An indirect ELISA to detect the serological response of Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) inoculated with Brucella abortus strain RB 51. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38: 752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-38.4.752

Ferrer M D, Leon L, Neilson K, Caporale V, Mendoza J, Osuna A, Perales A, Smith P, De Frutees C, Martin B G, Lucas A, Chico R, Delgado O D, Escabias J C, Arrogante L, Diaz-Parra R and Garrido F. 2004. Antibody response and antigen specific gamma interferon profiles of vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant sheep experimentally infected with Brucella melitensis. Veterinary Microbiology 100: 219–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.02.008

Gad El, Rab Mo and Kambal A M. 1998. Evaluation of a Brucella enzyme immunoassay test (ELISA) in comparison with bacteriological culture and agglutination. Journal of Infection 36: 197–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-4453(98)80013-3

Meirerhoff G, Off P A, Lehmann P V and Schloot N C. 2002. Cytokine detection by ELISA spot: relevance for immunological studies in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Research Reviews 18: 367–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.320

Neha, Ahmed W, Verma A K, Jain U and Bist B. 2014. Brucellosis in organized dairy farm: An investigation. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences 8: 29–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajas.2014.29.33

Nicoletti P and Winter A J. 1990. The immune response to Brucella abortus. The cell mediated response to infections. Animal Brucellosis. (Eds) Neilsen K and Duncan J R. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA 83–95.

Renukaradhya G J, Isloor S and Rajashekhar M. 2002. Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and control/ eradication of brucellosis in India. Veterinary Microbiology 90: 183–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00253-5

Schurig G G, Srirangnathan N and Corbel M J. 2002. Brucellosis vaccines: past, present and future. Veterinary Microbiology 90: 281-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00255-9

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1994. Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH publishing Co., New Delhi

Tittarelli M, Massi F D, Bonfini B, Ventura M D and Scacchia M. 2009. An ELISA for the evaluation of gamma interferon production in cattle vaccinated with Brucella abortus strain RB 51. Veterinaria Italiana 45: 355–61.

Verma A K, Dhama K, Chakraborty S, Kumar A, Tiwari R, Rahal A, Mahima and Singh S V. 2014. Strategies for Combating and Eradicating Important Infectious Diseases of Animals with Particular Reference to India: Present and Future Perspectives. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 9 (2): 77– 106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2014.77.106