Measles virus and inactivated canine distemper virus induce incomplete immunity to canine distemper

Abstract

Pairs of specific pathogen free dogs were immunized with two injections of heat inactivated canine distemper virus (CDV) or one injection of a live CDV or live measles virus (MV) vaccine. Three unimmunized dogs were used as controls. All 9 dogs were challenged with virulent CDV (Snyder Hill strain). The three unimmunized dogs developed severe signs of disease with a lethal infection in one. The two dogs immunized with live CDV vaccine developed a strong humoral as well as cellular immune response after immunization and were protected against virus replication. Animals immunized with either inactivated CDV or modified live MV failed to develop a measurable cellular immune response after immunization and had a comparatively weak humoral immune response to distemper antigens. They showed mild signs of infection after challenge and responded with strong anamnestic cellular and humoral immunity. The measles vaccine immunized dogs had a moderate serum titer of measles hemolysin-inhibiting antibodies which, after exposure to distemper virus, was boosted to high levels. It is proposed that this response plays a role in the mitigation of the virulent distemper infection in these animals.

Protection of mice from fatal measles encephalitis by vaccination with vaccinia virus recombinants encoding either the hemagglutinin or the fusion protein.

“…Cross-reactive F antigens between measles, CDV, and RPV have been well documented (25)(26)(27)(28)(29). Measles HA is also clearly cross-reactive with HA from RPV (26,28), and some monoclonal antibodies directed against measles HA can neutralize, albeit poorly, CDV (17).…”

Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) Immune-stimulating Complexes (Iscoms), but Not Measles Virus Iscoms, Protect Dogs against CDV Infection

“…In contrast, it has been shown in previous studies that Tween-ether-or heat-inactivated CDV preparations induce only partial protection against disease and infection (Gillespie, 1974;Appel et al, 1984).…”

“…The need for a well maintained cold chain and interference due to infection with other viral agents are also problems associated with the use of live vaccines (for reviews, see Norrby, 1985;Appel, 1987). Previous attempts to protect humans or dogs with Tween-ether-or formaldehyde-inactivated MV or CDV preparations, respectively, resulted in only partial protection against infection and disease (Gillespie, 1974;Norrby et al, 1975;Appel et al, 1984). The relative lack of protection 0000-8269 © 1988 SGM p. DE VRIES, F. G. C. M. UYTDEHAAG AND A. D. M. E. OSTERHAUS associated with these inactivated vaccines was suggested to be due to an 'incomplete' antibody response to the F protein, since no haemolysis-inhibiting (HLI) antibodies were induced (Norrby et al, 1975 ;Appel et al, 1984).…”

“…Previous attempts to protect humans or dogs with Tween-ether-or formaldehyde-inactivated MV or CDV preparations, respectively, resulted in only partial protection against infection and disease (Gillespie, 1974;Norrby et al, 1975;Appel et al, 1984). The relative lack of protection 0000-8269 © 1988 SGM p. DE VRIES, F. G. C. M. UYTDEHAAG AND A. D. M. E. OSTERHAUS associated with these inactivated vaccines was suggested to be due to an 'incomplete' antibody response to the F protein, since no haemolysis-inhibiting (HLI) antibodies were induced (Norrby et al, 1975 ;Appel et al, 1984). Consequently, for the construction of effective subunit vaccines against MV or CDV infection, the presentation of the F protein in a proper immunogenic form is considered to be of major importance (Committee on Issues for New Vaccine Development, 1985).…”

“…Because of the cross-protection against CDV by vaccination of dogs with live MV vaccine, which was suggested to be due to the induction of MV F-specific antibodies (Appel et al, 1984), vaccination studies with MV iscoms and MV F iscoms were also carried out. It was found that CDV iscoms induce VN antibodies in dogs, and also protection against viraemia and disease upon challenge with virulent CDV, whereas immunization of dogs with MV iscoms or MV F iscoms results only in a reduced level of viraemia and less severe clinical signs.…”