Comparison of Swine Vesicular Disease Virus and Coxsackie B5 Virus by Serological and RNA Hybridization Methods

Abstract

SUMMARYThe relatedness of swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) and Coxsackie B5 virus has been studied by virus neutralization and immunodiffusion tests and by hybridization of the virus RNAs. Clearly defined differences between the two viruses were found by the three methods. Isolates of SVDV from several countries were very closely related but could be differentiated. Recent isolates of Coxsackie B5 virus also appeared to be similar but clear differences could be detected between these and the prototype (Faulkner) strain of the virus. The SVDV isolates were more closely related to the Faulkner strain than to the recent isolates of Coxsackie B5 virus. Perhaps of more importance, the Faulkner strain was more closely related to SVDV than it was to the recent Coxsackie B5 isolates. The significance of these observations in relation to the recent emergence of swine vesicular disease is discussed.

Identification of neutralizing epitopes on a European strain of swine vesicular disease virus.

“…Subsequently, outbreaks were seen in Hong Kong in 1971 (Mowat et al, 1972) and in Europe and Japan during 1972-1975(Brown et al, 1976. Following eradication campaigns, SVD was eliminated from most of Europe by the mid 1980s, apart from Italy, where the disease has continued to persist until the present day.…”

“…MAR mutants were produced using each of MAbs C29, C70, C74, 5B7, 4H3 and 5D9 and were characterized by virus neutralization (VN) assays (Brown et al, 1976) and by ELISA. The percentage binding of MAbs to MAR mutants in ELISA was expressed as a percentage of the binding to the parental strain using an adaptation of the FMD strain characterization ELISA of Samuel et al (1991).…”

“…The nucleotide sequences for the externally exposed capsid coding regions of both ITL\9\93 and representative MAR mutants for each MAb were determined by RT-PCR and cycle sequencing using standard techniques (Brocchi et al, 1997 ; (Brown et al, 1976) and\or ELISA (Samuel et al, 1991) of MAR mutants produced using either ITL\9\93 (upper panel) or H3h76 (lower panel ; Kanno et al, 1995) strains of SVDV, named according to the MAb used to produce them. The single nucleotide substitutions shown for each MAR mutant were detected by comparing the sequence of the mutant with that of the respective parental strain.…”

Coxsackie B virus-specific IgM antibody and myocardial infarction

“…The quality of the antigen preparation appears to have little bearing on the specificity of those tests in which the antigen is allowed to adsorb directly on to a solid phase. Even purified virus prepared by treatment with sodium lauryl sulphate to remove provirions (Brown et al, 1976) shows heterotypic activity when used under such conditions (Hannington et al, 1983). On the other hand, Katze and Crowell (1980) have shown that the type-specificity of purified coxsackie B viruses is preserved when they attach to a solid phase previously coated with specific 'capture' antibody.…”

Monoclonal Antibodies for Study of Antigenic Variation in Coxsackievirus Type B4: Association of Antigenic Determinants with Myocarditic Properties of the Virus

“…The fact that the aetiological agent of an animal disease emerging in 1966, swine vesicular disease, is antigenically related to coxsackievirus type B5 (Graves, 1973;Brown et al, 1976) suggests that group B coxsackieviruses may undergo antigenic variation associated with marked changes in host tropism and pathology. Furthermore, a diabetogenic strain of coxsackievirus B4 (CBV-4) isolated from a human pancreas was more closely related antigenically to a diabetogenic strain selected by passage of the prototype CBV-4 strain in beta cells than to the prototype virus itself (Yoon et al, 1979).…”