2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2008.04.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Immune responses of recombinant adenovirus co-expressing VP1 of foot-and-mouth disease virus and porcine interferon α in mice and guinea pigs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There have been isolated reports mentioning assessment of the activity of certain anti‐microbial agents against FMDV in GP, but these are unavailable to us (Dhennin et al., ; Pltonikov et al., ; Tekerlekov et al., ). To date, the clinical quantification of lesions at the inoculation site and at the uninoculated feet and mouth remains the main method to evaluate protection in GP (Lucam et al., ; Bahnemann and Mesquita, ; Wu et al., ; Harmsen et al., ; Du et al., ,b; Guo et al., ). The objectives of this study were to (i) refine the FMDV‐infection model in GP by assessing both clinical and virological parameters of infection, (ii) assess the overall suitability of the GP model for the evaluation of small molecule inhibitors of the FMDV replication using T‐1105 as a reference and (iii) compare the protection offered by the antiviral drug with that conferred by an oil‐adjuvanted FMD vaccine.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been isolated reports mentioning assessment of the activity of certain anti‐microbial agents against FMDV in GP, but these are unavailable to us (Dhennin et al., ; Pltonikov et al., ; Tekerlekov et al., ). To date, the clinical quantification of lesions at the inoculation site and at the uninoculated feet and mouth remains the main method to evaluate protection in GP (Lucam et al., ; Bahnemann and Mesquita, ; Wu et al., ; Harmsen et al., ; Du et al., ,b; Guo et al., ). The objectives of this study were to (i) refine the FMDV‐infection model in GP by assessing both clinical and virological parameters of infection, (ii) assess the overall suitability of the GP model for the evaluation of small molecule inhibitors of the FMDV replication using T‐1105 as a reference and (iii) compare the protection offered by the antiviral drug with that conferred by an oil‐adjuvanted FMD vaccine.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the correlation between FMDV NA titer and protective efficacy in cattle has been well established [32-34], previous studies have shown that the protection against FMD is related not only to humoral immunity, but also to cellular immunity [35-37]. Previous studies have also shown that swine immunized with recombinant adenovirus expressing FMDV VP1 were completely protected against virulent FMDV challenge, even though the NA (titer < 40) induced by recombinant adenovirus expressing FMDV VP1 was significantly lower than that in swine inoculated with inactivated FMD vaccine [38,39]. Also, other reports showed that swine or cattle immunized with adenovirus expressing the FMDV P1 protein were protected against virulent FMDV challenge at post-vaccination day 7, although an NA titer was undetectable [28,40].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, it has been reported that IFN‐α can function as an adjuvant when co‐administered with an antigen including soluble protein (27), killed vaccine (28), or DNA encoding a transgene (29). Immunization of FMDV antigen with IFN‐α induced significantly higher titers of neutralizing antibodies and higher levels of T‐cell proliferation and IFN‐γ than antigen alone (30). Alternatively, IFN‐γ, the only type II IFN, is an important cytokine produced primarily by T lymphocytes and NK cells that play a role in modulation of the immune responses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%