Systemic and mucosal immune responses to H1N1 influenza virus infection in pigs

Larsen, Diane; Karasin, Alexander I.; Zuckermann, Federico A.; Olsen, Christopher W.

doi:10.1016/s0378-1135(00)00172-3

Cited by 93 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of hours per day spent in the barn was not a factor of signifi cance, suggesting that the overall frequency of pig contact is a more important consideration than the length of contact at any one time. This lack of signifi cance is consistent with the fact that infl uenza virus infections in pigs occur sporadically, and pigs generally only shed virus for approximately 7 days after infection [68].…”

Section: Swine Infl Uenza and Zoonosessupporting

confidence: 73%

Epidemiological update on swine influenza (H1N1) in pigs

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2009 H1N1 pandemic has slowed down its spread after initial speed of transmission. The conventional swine infl uenza H1N1 virus (SIV) in pig populations worldwide needs to be differentiated from pandemic H1N1 infl uenza virus, however it is also essential to know about the exact role of pigs in the spread and mutations taking place in pig-to-pig transmission. The present paper reviews epidemiological features of classical SIV and its differentiation with pandemic infl uenza. -Derek Gatherer, 2009 (1) Keywords Swine fl u · Infl uenza · H1N1

show abstract

Section: Swine Infl Uenza and Zoonosessupporting

confidence: 73%

Epidemiological update on swine influenza (H1N1) in pigs

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pigs immunized with virulent SIV and then challenged with the same virus 42 days later did not have a detectable anamnestic serum antibody response [30]. However, an anamnestic mucosal immune response (rise in IgA and IgG) was detected in the nasal cavity, the site of challenge, indicating that this compartment of the immune system was stimulated [30]. These data support the hypothesis that antibody mediated protection at the mucosal level is important for clearing the respiratory tract of SIV and may not be accurately reflected by systemic antibody levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In addition, IgA was shown to be more cross-reactive than IgG against heterologous virus, and passive transfer of IgA to non-immune mice conferred protection [39], whereas mucosal administration of anti-IgA to immune mice blocked protection from re-infection with the same virus [40]. Pigs immunized with virulent SIV and then challenged with the same virus 42 days later did not have a detectable anamnestic serum antibody response [30]. However, an anamnestic mucosal immune response (rise in IgA and IgG) was detected in the nasal cavity, the site of challenge, indicating that this compartment of the immune system was stimulated [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy of intranasal administration of a truncated NS1 modified live influenza virus vaccine in swine

Vincent

Lager

et al. 2007

Vaccine

133

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the U.S., despite available swine influenza virus (SIV) vaccines, multiple influenza subtypes as well as antigenic and genetic variants within subtypes continue to circulate in the swine population. One of the challenges to control and eliminate SIV is that the currently used inactivated influenza virus vaccines do not provide adequate cross-protection against multiple antigenic variants of SIV in the field. We previously generated a recombinant H3N2 swine influenza virus (SIV) based on the influenza A/SW/TX/4199-2/98 virus (TX98) containing an NS1 gene expressing a truncated NS1 protein of 126 amino acids, TX98-NS1Δ126 virus. This recombinant strain was demonstrated to be highly attenuated in swine and showed potential for use as a modified live-virus vaccine (MLV) after intratracheal application in pigs. However, this route of inoculation is not practical for vaccination in the field. In the present study, we first compared intramuscular and intranasal routes of application of the MLV, and found that the intranasal route was superior in priming the local (mucosal) immune response. Pigs were then vaccinated via the intranasal route and challenged with wild type homologous TX98 H3N2 virus, with a genetic and antigenic variant H3N2 SIV (influenza A/SW/ CO/23619/99 virus, CO99) and a heterosubtypic H1N1 SIV (influenza A/SW/IA/00239/2004 virus, IA04). The intranasally vaccinated pigs were completely protected against homologous challenge. In addition, MLV vaccination provided nearly complete protection against the antigenic H3N2 variant CO99 virus. When challenged with the H1N1 IA04 virus, MLV vaccinated animals displayed reduced fever and virus titers despite minimal reduction in lung lesions. In vaccinated pigs, there was no serologic cross-reactivity by HI assays with the heterologous or heterosubtypic viruses. However, there appeared to be substantial cross-reactivity in antibodies at the mucosal level with the CO99 virus in MLV vaccinated pigs.

show abstract

“…In addition, IgA has been shown to be more cross-reactive against heterologous challenge than IgG in mice (Tamura et al, 1991). Although reports describing the immune response to influenza vaccines or infection are limited in the swine host; humoral immune responses that include both IgA and IgG at the mucosal level have been shown to be important for protecting the respiratory tract from SIV in swine (Larsen et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of humoral and cellular immune responses to inactivated swine influenza virus vaccine in weaned pigs

Platt

Vincent

Gauger

et al. 2011

Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humoral and cellular immune responses to inactivated swine influenza virus (SIV) vaccine were evaluated and compared. Fifty 3-week-old weaned pigs were randomly divided into the non-vaccinated control group and vaccinated group containing 25 pigs each. Pigs were vaccinated intramuscularly twice with adjuvanted UV-inactivated A/SW/MN/02011/08 (MN/08) H1N2 SIV vaccine at 6 and 9 weeks of age. Whole blood samples for multi-parameter flow cytometry (MP-FCM) and serum samples for hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay were collected at 23 and 28 days after the second vaccination, respectively. A standard HI assay and MP-FCM were performed against UV-inactivated homologous MN/08 and heterologous pandemic A/CA/ 04/2009 (CA/09) H1N1 viruses. While the HI assay detected humoral responses only to the MN/08 virus, the MP-FCM detected strong cellular responses against the MN/08 virus and significant heterologous responses to the CA/09 virus, especially in the CD4+CD8+ T cell subset. The cellular heterologous responses to UV-inactivated virus by MP-FCM suggested that the assay was sensitive and potentially detected a wider range of antigens than what was detected by the HI assay. Overall, the adjuvanted UV-inactivated A/SW/ MN/02011/08 H1N2 SIV vaccine stimulated both humoral and cellular immune responses including the CD4−CD8+ T cell subset. Keywords Humoral and cellular immune responses, Swine influenza virus vaccine

show abstract

Systemic and mucosal immune responses to H1N1 influenza virus infection in pigs

Cited by 93 publications

References 46 publications

Epidemiological update on swine influenza (H1N1) in pigs

Epidemiological update on swine influenza (H1N1) in pigs

Efficacy of intranasal administration of a truncated NS1 modified live influenza virus vaccine in swine

Comparison of humoral and cellular immune responses to inactivated swine influenza virus vaccine in weaned pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About