Exposure of in vitro-produced bovine embryos to foot-and-mouth disease virus

Guienne, B. Marquant-Le; Remond, Michèle; Cosquer, R; Humblot, P.; Kaiser, C.; Lebreton, Françoise; Crucière, Catherine; Guérin, Bernard; Laporte, Jacques; Thibier, M.

doi:10.1016/s0093-691x(98)00118-6

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Marquant‐Le Guienne et al. (1998) have demonstrated that 7‐day‐old bovine IVP embryos can retain FMDV after washing in accordance with the IETS recommendations.…”

Section: Interactions Of Bvdv and Fmdv With Embryosmentioning

confidence: 57%

Interactions of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus and Foot‐and‐mouth Disease Virus with Bovine Reproductive Tissues and Embryos

Vanroose

2000

Reprod Domestic Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contents This review will focus upon the interactions of two important viral pathogens in cattle, bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) and foot‐and‐mouth disease virus (FMDV), respectively, with bovine reproductive tissues and embryos. Both viruses are widely spread throughout the world and cause serious economic losses due to death, loss of appetite and weight, respiratory disease, reproductive problems (infertility, early embryonic death, abortions) and decreased milk production (Baker, J Am Vet Med Assoc 190, 1449–1458, 1987; Kitching, J Comp Path 118, 89–108, 1998).

show abstract

“…Marquant‐Le Guienne et al. (1998) have demonstrated that 7‐day‐old bovine IVP embryos can retain FMDV after washing in accordance with the IETS recommendations.…”

Section: Interactions Of Bvdv and Fmdv With Embryosmentioning

confidence: 57%

Interactions of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus and Foot‐and‐mouth Disease Virus with Bovine Reproductive Tissues and Embryos

Vanroose

2000

Reprod Domestic Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ZP of in vitro ‐produced embryo seems to interact with pathogens differently than from in vivo embryos. One further evidence of this was reported by Marquant‐LeGuienne et al. (1998) investigating quite an important pathogen in ruminants and swine, the FMD virus.…”

Section: In Vivo‐produced Embryosmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The ZP of in vitro-produced embryo seems to interact with pathogens differently than from in vivo embryos. One further evidence of this was reported by Marquant-LeGuienne et al (1998) investigating quite an important pathogen in ruminants and swine, the FMD virus. These authors in vitro contaminated with this pathogen in vitro-produced embryos and showed that the 10 washings of the embryos recommended were unable to remove the association of the FMD virus (type O) from the embryos as opposed to what was reported for in vivo-derived embryos (Singh et al, 1986 in review of the IETS manual, Stringfellow and Seidel 1998).…”

Section: Types Of Pathogensmentioning

confidence: 78%

Biosecurity and the Various Types of Embryos Transferred

Thibier

2006

Reprod Domestic Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present paper was to review some features related to the risk analysis of three types of embryos to be transferred, namely the in vivo derived, the in vitro produced and the cloned ones. For in vivo-collected embryos, a considerable number of experiments and scientific investigations have been performed and hundreds of thousands of embryos are transferred annually with no contamination of associated diseases. Provided that the code of practice such as that published by the International Embryo Transfer Society is strictly followed by the embryo transfer practitioners, the statement made some 17 years ago saying that the in vivo-derived embryo transfer was the safest way of exchanging genes remains entirely true, thanks to the professionalism of the embryo transfer industry. For the in vitro-produced embryos, some particular rules have to be followed because of specific risks for some pathogens to strongly adhere to the zona pellucida of such embryos. There are some means to monitor and control those effects, and the transfer of in vitro-produced embryos can also be a very safe way to exchange genes around the world. The third type of embryos, the cloned ones, is a quite different category and the risk analysis to be soundly made still needs a lot of investigations so as to characterize the potential risks if there are, in terms not only of disease transmission but also in terms of public health, zoonotic risks as well as those related to quality and safety of food. The problem in this regard, is more directly addressed for offspring of clones than to the cloned embryos themselves. Published data on this issue are increasing in numbers so that progress in that area is expected in the few years to come.

show abstract

“…The washing procedure recommended by IETS has been tested by many authors after experimental exposure of the oocytes to different pathogens, such as the Bluetongue virus [36], BHV-1 [5,16,31], BVDV [10,20,22,54,58], FMDV [39] and bacteria such as Actinomyces pyogenes bovis, E. coli and Streptococcus agalactiae [11,43]. All these studies have shown that the washing procedure was ineffective in removing viruses from IVF embryos, even if a reduction of the infection rate has been observed after a standard trypsin treatment for BHV-1 [17] and BVDV [58].…”

Section: Risks Of Disease Transmission Via Contaminated Ivf Embryosmentioning

confidence: 99%