Seal vaccination success

Osterhaus, Albert D. M. E.; Uytdehaag, Fons G. C. M.; Visser, Ilona; Vedder, E.J.; Reijnders, P.J.H.; Kuiper, Jan J.; Brugge, H. N.

doi:10.1038/337021a0

Cited by 44 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Top ranking wildlife diseases to research on are those where (1) wildlife has a high probability of substantially Osterhaus et al 1988;Artois et al 1993;Angulo and Cooke 2002;Kaden et al 2002 andLesellier et al 2006 Fig . 3 The interests conflict regarding wildlife disease control in game species.…”

Section: European Priorities In Wildlife Disease Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: European Priorities In Wildlife Disease Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, concerns about the safety and efficacy of rabies and CDV vaccines, engendered by problems encountered in the wild dog and black-footed ferret programmes, led to the recommendation that, despite chronic disease risks, no attempt should be made to vaccinate Ethiopian wolves (Sillero-Zubiri, King & Macdonald, 1996;Laurenson et al, 1997). Likewise, the costs of vaccinating harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) against phocine distemper virus were considered to outweigh the benefits because, although an effective protocol had been established, it required the administration of multiple doses of vaccine, which is difficult and stressful for marine mammals (Osterhaus et al, 1989;Hall & Harwood, 1990).…”

Section: Practical Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing disease threats to wild mammals

Woodroffe

1999

Animal Conservation

225

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infectious disease is an emerging threat that conservationists are ill-equipped to manage. The threat is greatest for small populations, which can be driven to extinction by virulent pathogens; these are usually generalist pathogens that 'spill over' from other host species, often domestic animals. Recent attempts at disease control have taken a variety of forms, some directed at threatened hosts themselves, and others involving reservoir hosts. Thus far, few such attempts have demonstrated clear benefits of intervention, often because they were 'crisis management' tactics allowing no comparison with untreated controls. Design of future strategies is hampered by a lack of basic information concerning the pathogens that represent serious threats, their epidemiology in multiple-host systems, and the vaccination or treatment protocols likely to be most effective under field conditions. In general, vaccination and treatment will be most valuable in tiny populations facing very high extinction risks. However, interventions that are poorly planned or under-funded have the potential to do more harm than good. In larger populations, or over larger areas, intensive management may be inappropriate, unsustainable, or simply impractical. In these circumstances, managing population size, structure or contact between host species could offer promising alternatives to intervention.

show abstract

“…CDV iscoms were also used to vaccinate seals against phocoid distemper virus (PDV), a recently discovered morbillivirus that caused mass mortality among seals in the North Sea in 1988 (Osterhaus et al, 1989b;Visser et al, 1989). Vaccination was successful since all animals developed PDV-neutralizing antibodies.…”

Section: Paramyxo Viridaementioning

confidence: 99%