Efficacy and safety of simultaneous vaccination with two modified live virus vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus types 1 and 2 in pigs

Kristensen, Charlotte Sonne; Kvisgaard, Lise Kirstine; Pawłowski, Maciej; Carlsen, S. H.; Hjulsager, Charlotte Kristiane; Heegaard, Peter M. H.; Bøtner, Anette; Stadejek, Tomasz; Haugegaard, Svend; Larsen, Lars Erik

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.11.059

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lung lesion scores and PRRSV antigens in lung tissues were significantly reduced in the vaccination groups compared to the unvaccinated group after challenge with heterologous viruses [15][16][17][18] . Our results are in agreement with those of a previous single challenge study that demonstrated partial cross-protection by PRRSV MLV 15, 16,22,[41][42][43][44] . On the other hand, our cross-protection results are in contrast with those of another previous dual-challenge study in which vaccination with PRRSV-1 MLV reduced only PRRSV-1 viremia and not PRRSV-2 viremia 45 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Cell-mediated immune response and protective efficacy of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus modified-live vaccines against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2

Madapong

Saeng‐chuto

Boonsoongnern

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cell-mediated immunity (CMI), IL-10, and the protective efficacy of modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccines (MLV) against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 (HP-PRRSV) were investigated. Seventy, PRRSV-free, 3-week old, pigs were allocated into 7 groups. Six groups were intramuscularly vaccinated with MLV, including Porcilis (PRRSV-1 MLV, MSD Animal Health, The Netherlands), Amervac (PRRSV-1 MLV, Laboratorios Hipra, Spain), Fostera (PRRSV-2 MLV, Zoetis, USA), Ingelvac PRRS MLV and Ingelvac PRRS ATP (PRRSV-2, Boehringer Ingelheim, USA), and Prime Pac PRRS (PRRSV-2 MLV, MSD Animal Health, The Netherlands). Unvaccinated pigs were left as control. Lymphocyte proliferative response, IL-10 and IFN-γ production were determined. At 35 days post-vaccination (DPV), all pigs were inoculated intranasally with 2 ml of each PRRSV-1 (10 5.4 tciD 50 /ml) and PRRSV-2 (10 5.2 tciD 50 /ml, HP-PRRSV). Following challenge, sera were quantitatively assayed for PRRSV RNA. Pigs were necropsied at 7 days post-challenge. Viremia, macro-and microscopic lung lesion together with pRRSV antigen presence were evaluated in lung tissues. The results demonstrated that, regardless of vaccine genotype, CMI induced by all MLVs was relatively slow. Increased production of IL-10 in all vaccinated groups was observed at 7 and 14 DPV. Pigs in Amervac, Ingelvac MLV and Ingelvac ATP groups had significantly higher levels of IL-10 compared to Porcilis, Fostera and Prime Pac groups at 7 and 14 DPV. Following challenge, regardless to vaccine genotype, vaccinated pigs had significantly lower lung lesion scores and PRRSV antigens than those in the control group. Both PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 RNA were significantly reduced. Prime Pac pigs had lowest PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 RNA in serum, and micro-and macroscopic lung lesion scores (p < 0.05) compared to other vaccinated groups. In conclusion, PRRSV MLVs, regardless of vaccine genotype, can reduce viremia and lung lesions following co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 (HP-PRRSV). The main difference between PRRSV MLV is the production of IL-10 following vaccination. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is a devastating disease in pigs characterized by reproductive and respiratory failures. PRRS virus (PRRSV), an enveloped, positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus belonging to the Arteriviridae family, order Nidovirales, is the causative agent 1. Two antigenically distinct genotypes of PRRSV, PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2, have been recognized. The genomes of both genotypes are 15 kb in

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Cell-mediated immune response and protective efficacy of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus modified-live vaccines against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2

Madapong

Saeng‐chuto

Boonsoongnern

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, one possible way to control co-infection of pigs with two species may be the concurrent vaccination of pigs with both MLV1 and MLV2 vaccines as a combined vaccine containing PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 is not yet commercially available. One study reported that co-vaccination of pigs at four weeks of age provided only partial protection against respiratory disease caused by a dual challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 [73]. Another study contradicted these finding as concurrent vaccination could only provide protection against respiratory disease caused by PRRSV-1 in four-weekold pigs with a dual challenge [74].…”

Section: Co-vaccination Of Prrs-1 and Prrsv-2 MLV Vaccinementioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial PRRS Modified-Live Virus Vaccines

Chae

2021

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus (PRRSV) presents one of the challenging viral pathogens in the global pork industry. PRRS is characterized by two distinct clinical presentations; reproductive failure in breeding animals (gilts, sows, and boars), and respiratory disease in growing pigs. PRRSV is further divided into two species: PRRSV-1 (formerly known as the European genotype 1) and PRRSV-2 (formerly known as the North American genotype 2). A PRRSV-2 modified-live virus (MLV) vaccine was first introduced in North America in 1994, and, six years later, a PRRSV-1 MLV vaccine was also introduced in Europe. Since then, MLV vaccination is the principal strategy used to control PRRSV infection. Despite the fact that MLV vaccines have shown some efficacy, they were problematic as the efficacy of vaccine was often unpredictable and depended highly on the field virus. This paper focused on the efficacy of commercially available MLV vaccines at a global level based on respiratory disease in growing pigs, and maternal and paternal reproductive failure in breeding animals.

show abstract

“…They critically evaluate different vaccination approaches against the PRRS virus and indicate the main weaknesses of current vaccines and vaccination strategies (26)(27)(28)(29). Among others the problem are caused by high heterogeneity and occurrence of highly pathogenic strains and therefore efforts have been made to develop vaccines with a broad spectrum of effects (4,5,7,(30)(31)(32)(33). However, the opinion still prevails that vaccination is more cost-beneficial over other health interventions (34)(35)(36).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of our study were to compare the immune response to different killed and modified live vaccines against PRRS virus and to monitor the antibody production and the cell mediated immunity both at the systemic and local level. In the experiment, we immunized four groups of piglets with two commercial inactivated (A1—Progressis, A2—Suivac) and two modified live vaccines (B3—Amervac, B4—Porcilis). Twenty-one days after the final vaccination, all piglets, including the control non-immunized group (C5), were i.n., infected with the Lelystad strain of PRRS virus. The serum antibody response (IgM and IgG) was the strongest in group A1 followed by two MLV (B3 and B4) groups. Locally, we demonstrated the highest level of IgG antibodies in bronchoalveolar lavages (BALF), and saliva in group A1, whereas low IgA antibody responses in BALF and feces were detected in all groups. We have found virus neutralization antibody at DPV 21 (days post vaccination) and higher levels in all groups including the control at DPI 21 (days post infection). Positive antigen specific cell-mediated response in lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) was observed in groups B3 and B4 at DPV 7 and in group B4 at DPV 21 and in all intervals after infection. The IFN-γ producing lymphocytes after antigen stimulation were found in CD4 − CD8 + and CD4 + CD8 + subsets of all immunized groups 7 days after infection. After infection, there were obvious differences in virus excretion. The virus was detected in all groups of piglets in serum, saliva, and occasionally in feces at DPI 3. Significantly lower virus load was found in groups A1 and B3 at DPI 21. Negative samples appeared at DPI 21 in B3 group in saliva. It can be concluded that antibodies after immunization and infection, and the virus after infection can be detected in all the compartments monitored. Immunization with inactivated vaccine A1—Progressis induces high levels of antibodies produced both systemically and locally. Immunization with MLV-vaccines (Amervac and Porcilis) produces sufficient antibody levels and also cell-mediated immunity. After infection virus secretion gradually decreases in group B3, indicating tendency to induce sterile immunity.

show abstract

Efficacy and safety of simultaneous vaccination with two modified live virus vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus types 1 and 2 in pigs

Cited by 17 publications

References 41 publications

Cell-mediated immune response and protective efficacy of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus modified-live vaccines against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2

Cell-mediated immune response and protective efficacy of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus modified-live vaccines against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2

Commercial PRRS Modified-Live Virus Vaccines

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About