Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Vaccine ; 39(3): 617-625, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33328142

RESUMO

Small ruminant brucellosis is caused by the Gram negative cocci-bacillus Brucella (B.) melitensis, the most virulent Brucella species for humans. In goats and sheep, middle to late-term gestation abortion, stillbirths and the delivery of weak infected offspring are the characteristic clinical signs of the disease. Vaccination with the currently available Rev. 1 vaccine is the best option to prevent and control the disease, although it is far from ideal. In this study, we investigate the safety of the B. melitensis 16MΔvjbR strain during a 15-month period beginning at vaccination of young goats, impregnation, delivery and lactation. Forty, 4 to 6 months old, healthy female crossbreed goats were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) and immunized subcutaneously with a single vaccine dose containing 1x109 CFU of B. melitensis 16MΔvjbR delivered in alginate microcapsules or non-encapsulated. Controls received empty capsules or the commercially available Rev.1 vaccine. Seven months post-vaccination, when animals were sexually mature, all goats were naturally bred using brucellosis-free males, and allowed to carry pregnancies to term. Blood samples to assess the humoral immune response were collected throughout the study. At two months post-delivery, all dams and their offspring were euthanized and a necropsy was performed to collect samples for bacteriology and histology. Interestingly, none of the animals that received the vaccine candidate regardless of the formulation exhibited any clinical signs associated with vaccination nor shed the vaccine strain through saliva, vagina or the milk. Gross and histopathologic changes in all nannies and offspring were unremarkable with no evidence of tissue colonization or vertical transmission to fetuses. Altogether, these data demonstrate that vaccination with the mutant strain 16MΔvjbR is safe for use in the non-pregnant primary host.


Assuntos
Vacina contra Brucelose , Brucella melitensis , Brucelose , Doenças dos Ovinos , Animais , Brucelose/prevenção & controle , Brucelose/veterinária , Feminino , Cabras , Humanos , Gravidez , Ovinos
2.
Vaccine X ; 3: 100041, 2019 Dec 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31528851

RESUMO

Brucellosis in swine is caused by Brucella suis, a bacterial infection of nearly worldwide distribution. Brucella suis is also transmissible to humans, dogs and cattle and is considered a reemerging disease of public health concern. To date, there is no effective vaccine for swine. This prompted us to investigate the potential use of the commercially available vaccine for cattle or the live attenuated vaccine candidate S19ΔvjbR. As the first step, we sought to study the safety of the vaccine candidates when administered in pregnant sows, since one of the major drawbacks associated with vaccination using Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAV) is the induction of abortions when administered in pregnant animals. Fifteen pregnant gilts at mid-gestation were divided into four groups and subsequently vaccinated subcutaneously using different formulations containing 2.0 ±â€¯0.508 × 109 CFU of either S19 or S19ΔvjbR. Vaccination in pregnant animals with the vaccine candidates did not induce abortion, stillbirths or a reduction in litter size. Multiple tissues in the gilts and piglets were examined at the time of delivery to assess bacterial colonization and histopathological changes. There was no evidence of vaccine persistence in the gilts or bacterial colonization in the fetuses. Altogether, these data suggest that both vaccine candidates are safe for use in pregnant swine. Analysis of the humoral responses, specifically anti-Brucella IgG levels measured in serum, demonstrated a robust response induced by either vaccine, but of shorter duration (4-6 weeks post-inoculation) compared to that observed in cattle or experimentally infected mice. Such a transient humoral response may prove to be beneficial in cases where the vaccine is used in eradication campaigns and in the differentiation of vaccinated from infected animals. This study provides evidence to support future efficacy studies of both vaccine candidates in swine.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA