Co-infection with Mycobacterium bovis does not alter the response to bovine leukemia virus in BoLA DRB3*0902, genetically resistant cattle.

High proviral load (HPL) profile in bovine leukemia virus infected animals poses increased risk of transmission, and development of HPL or low proviral load (LPL) profile may be attributed to host genetics. Genetic resistance and susceptibility has been mapped to the Major Histocompatibility Complex class II DRB3 gene (BoLA DRB3). The aim of this work was to determine the effect of Mycobacterium bovis infection on certain virological and host immunological parameters of BLV experimental infection. Twenty-six Argentinian Holstein calves carrying the resistance-associated marker allele BoLA DRB3*0902, susceptibility-associated marker allele BoLA DRB3*1501, or neutral BoLA DRB3 alleles, exposed to M. bovis were used. Twenty calves were inoculated with BLV, three were naturally infected and other three were BLV-negative. Seven from twenty six (27%) of the animals resulted positive to the PPD test. The proviral load, absolute leukocyte and lymphocyte counts, time to seroconversion, antibody titer against BLV, and viral antigen expression in vitro at various times post inoculation were determined and compared between PPD+ and PPD- animals. From a total of 23 BLV positive animals (naturally and experimentally infected), 13 (56.5%) developed HPL, and 10 (43.5%) developed LPL. None of the investigated parameters were affected by infection with M. bovis. We concluded that the ability of cattle carrying resistance-associated marker to control BLV and to progress towards a LPL phenotype was not altered by M. bovis co-infection.

Partial molecular characterization of different proviral strains of bovine leukemia virus.

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV)-infected cattle were classified by their proviral load into low and high proviral load profiles (LPL and HPL, respectively). Blood from these animals was used to infect sheep to obtain multiple identical copies of integrated provirus. An env fragment of BLV was amplified from all infected sheep and sequenced. The sequences that were obtained were compared to already published BLV genome sequence, resulting in three clusters. Mutations could not be attributed to the passage of provirus from cattle to sheep and subsequent amplification and sequencing. The description of two different proviral load profiles, the association of the BoLA-DRB3.2 0902 allele with the LPL profile, the availability of complete BLV sequences, and the comparison of a variable region of the env gene from carefully characterized cattle are still not enough to explain the presence of animals in every herd that are resistant to BLV dissemination.

Determination of proviral load in bovine leukemia virus-infected cattle with and without lymphocytosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine proviral load in bovine leukemia virus (BLV)-infected cattle with and without persistent lymphocytosis to assess the potential of transmitting the virus. ANIMALS: Cattle in 6 dairy herds. PROCEDURES: Blood samples from infected cows were evaluated 3 times at 6-month intervals for determination of proviral load via PCR assay, serologic results via ELISA, and hematologic status via differential cell counts. RESULTS: Infected cattle were classified into lymphocytotic and nonlymphocytotic groups. Lymphocytotic cattle consistently had > 100,000 copies of integrated provirus/mug of DNA (ie, high proviral load) in peripheral blood leukocytes. Titers of antibodies against BLVgp51 and BLVp24 indicated a strong immune response. Nonlymphocytotic cattle comprised 2 subgroups: a group with high proviral load and strong immune response, and a group with a weaker immune response, mostly against BLVp24, and a proviral load of < 100 copies/microg of DNA (ie, low proviral load). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results emphasized the importance of characterizing nonlymphocytotic BLV-infected cattle during eradication programs. The risk of transmitting BLV infection from nonlymphocytotic cattle may differ depending on the proviral load. Nonlymphocytotic cattle with high proviral load could be efficient transmitters (as efficient as lymphocytotic cattle), whereas nonlymphocytotic cattle with low proviral load could be inefficient transmitters under standard husbandry conditions. Because most cattle with low proviral load do not develop anti-BLVp24 antibodies, it appears that lack of an anti-BLVp24 antibody response may be a good marker of this condition.