ArticleBMC veterinary research2016
Unrecognized circulation of SAT 1 foot-and-mouth disease virus in cattle herds around Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology and control strategies for foot-and-mouth disease in livestock and wildlife in Uganda: systematic review.Veterinary research communications · 2025Pooled it
- Seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease in cattle in East Africa between 2014 and 2024: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC veterinary research · 2025Pooled it
- Prioritizing smallholder animal health needs in East Africa, West Africa, and South Asia using three approaches: Literature review, expert workshops, and practitioner surveys.Preventive veterinary medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Spatial Patterns and Epidemiological Drivers of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Uganda.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and economics of foot-and-mouth disease: current understanding and knowledge gaps.Veterinary research · 2025Review
- Epidemiological Dynamics of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the Horn of Africa: The Role of Virus Diversity and Animal Movement.Viruses · 2023Review
- Complex Circulation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus in Cattle in Nigeria.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Genetic Diversity of Circulating Foot and Mouth Disease Virus in Uganda Cross-Sectional Study During 2014-2017.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Quantitative Risk Assessment of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Virus Introduction Into the FMD-Free Zone Without Vaccination of Argentina Through Legal and Illegal Trade of Bone-in Beef and Unvaccinated Susceptible Species.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2019Article
- Foot-and-mouth disease virus O/ME-SA/Ind 2001 lineage outbreak in vaccinated Holstein Friesian cattle in Saudi Arabia in 2016.The veterinary quarterly · 2018Article
- Methodological aspects of serosurveillance in resource-poor settings.Veterinary record open · 2018Article
- The Development and Validation of a Novel Nanobody-Based Competitive ELISA for the Detection of Foot and Mouth Disease 3ABC Antibodies in Cattle.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is endemic in Uganda in spite of the control measures used. Various aspects of the maintenance and circulation of FMD viruses (FMDV) in Uganda are not well understood; these include the role of the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) as a reservoir for FMDV. To better understand the epidemiology of FMD at the livestock-wildlife-interface, samples were collected from young, unvaccinated cattle from 24 pastoral herds that closely interact with wildlife around Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda, and analysed for evidence of FMDV infection.
resultsIn total, 37 (15%) of 247 serum samples had detectable antibodies against FMDV non-structural proteins (NSPs) using a pan-serotypic assay. Within these 37 sera, antibody titres ≥ 80 against the structural proteins of serotypes O, SAT 1, SAT 2 and SAT 3 were detected by ELISA in 5, 7, 4 and 3 samples, respectively, while neutralizing antibodies were only detected against serotype O in 3 samples. Two FMDV isolates, with identical VP1 coding sequences, were obtained from probang samples from clinically healthy calves from the same herd and are serotype SAT 1 (topotype IV (EA-I)). Based on the VP1 coding sequences, these viruses are distinct from previous cattle and buffalo SAT 1 FMDV isolates obtained from the same area (19-30% nucleotide difference) and from the vaccine strain (TAN/155/71) used within Uganda (26% nucleotide difference). Eight herds had only one or a few animals with antibodies against FMDV NSPs while six herds had more substantial evidence of prior infection with FMDV. There was no evidence for exposure to FMDV in the other ten herds.
conclusionsThe two identical SAT 1 FMDV VP1 sequences are distinct from former buffalo and cattle isolates from the same area, thus, transmission between buffalo and cattle was not demonstrated. These new SAT 1 FMDV isolates differed significantly from the vaccine strain used to control Ugandan FMD outbreaks, indicating a need for vaccine matching studies. Only six herds had clear serological evidence for exposure to O and SAT 1 FMDV. Scattered presence of antibodies against FMDV in other herds may be due to the occasional introduction of animals to the area or maternal antibodies from past infection and/or vaccination. The evidence for asymptomatic FMDV infection has implications for disease control strategies in the area since this obstructs early disease detection that is based on clinical signs in FMDV infected animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.