2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2005.07.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Serologic responses, biosafety and clearance of four dosages of Brucella abortus strain RB51 in 6–10 months old water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A poor reactivity of anti‐bovine conjugate to the buffalo sera might be another possible explanation but high reactivity (up to 82.63% positivity in 3ANSP‐ELISA; data not presented) shown by some of the sera does not support this hypothesis. In addition, there are reports where anti‐bovine conjugate has been used to detect buffalo sera (Diptee et al., 2006). Third and the most possible explanation might be the cut‐off limit of the test; the cut‐off value (20%) was determined by utilizing the cattle sera collected from different parts of Germany.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A poor reactivity of anti‐bovine conjugate to the buffalo sera might be another possible explanation but high reactivity (up to 82.63% positivity in 3ANSP‐ELISA; data not presented) shown by some of the sera does not support this hypothesis. In addition, there are reports where anti‐bovine conjugate has been used to detect buffalo sera (Diptee et al., 2006). Third and the most possible explanation might be the cut‐off limit of the test; the cut‐off value (20%) was determined by utilizing the cattle sera collected from different parts of Germany.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RB51 was cleared from vaccinated water buffalo calves between 6 and 12 weeks post-vaccination at the recommended dose (Diptee et al 2005), similar to clearance in bovine calves. Lateral transmission of RB51 and environmental shedding of RB51 antigen from mucosal surfaces did not occur (Diptee et al 2006). Eight percent (two of 24) of vaccinated water buffalo were persistently infected with RB51 through the first year after inoculation.…”
Section: Ruminant Studiesmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Evaluation of RB51 vaccine in domestic water buffalo B. abortus RB51 vaccine does not induce in water buffalo serum antibodies that react in the BPAT and c-ELISA (Diptee et al 2006(Diptee et al , 2007Fosgate et al 2003b). Both complement fixation (CF) and dot-blot ELISA can be used to monitor antibody response to RB51 vaccination in water buffalo, but CF has higher sensitivity.…”
Section: Ruminant Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RB51 can be safely used in water buffalo (Diptee et al, 2006), but it is not protective against natural Brucella infections, as evidenced by the percentage of vaccinated animals seroconverting was greater than the control group (43% versus 15%), and all isolates were confirmed to be B. abortus biovar 1 and not RB51 (Fosgate et al, 2003). RB51 is safe in small ruminants (Roop et al, 1991), but it does not protect sheep against abortion induced by wt B. melitensis (el Idrissi et al, 2001), nor does RB51 confer protection against B. ovis in goats (Jiménez de Bagüés et al, 1995; Herrera et al, 2011).…”
Section: Live Vaccinesmentioning
confidence: 99%