Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952269›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2021

Immune response in dairy cattle against combined foot and mouth disease and haemorrhagic septicemia vaccine under field conditions.

Anucha Muenthaisong, Amarin Rittipornlertrak, Boondarika Nambooppha, Pallop Tankaew, Thanya Varinrak, Marutpong Pumpuang, Korkiat Muangthai, Kheemchompu Atthikanyaphak, Tawatchai Singhla, Kidsadagon Pringproa and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anucha MuenthaisongDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Amarin RittipornlertrakDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Boondarika NamboopphaDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Pallop TankaewCentral Laboratory, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Thanya VarinrakCentral Laboratory, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Marutpong PumpuangBureau of Veterinary Biologics, Department of Livestock Developments, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, 30130, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Korkiat MuangthaiBureau of Veterinary Biologics, Department of Livestock Developments, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, 30130, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Kheemchompu AtthikanyaphakBureau of Veterinary Biologics, Department of Livestock Developments, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, 30130, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Tawatchai SinghlaDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Kidsadagon PringproaDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Veerasak PunyapornwithayaDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Takuo SawadaLaboratory of Veterinary Microbiology, Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, 180-8602, Musashino, Tokyo, Japan.
Nattawooti SthitmateeDepartment of Veterinary Bioscience and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 50100, Chiang Mai, Thailand. drneaw@gmail.com.
Chiang Mai University · THMinistry of Agriculture and Cooperatives · THNippon Veterinary and Life Science University · JP

Funding

Chiang Mai University 023/2562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and Haemorrhagic septicemia (HS) are two important diseases that are known to have caused significant economic losses to the cattle industry. Accordingly, vaccinations have been recognized as an efficient method to control and prevent both of the above-mentioned diseases. This study aimed to determine the immune response to FMD virus antigens and the recombinant outer membrane protein of HS (rOmpH) of Pasteurella multocida in cattle administered as a combination vaccine and compare antibody titers with the two vaccines given independently, under field conditions. Dairy cattle were divided into three groups. Each group was immunized with different vaccine types according to the vaccination program employed in this study. Antibody responses were determined by indirect ELISA, liquid phase blocking ELISA (LPB-ELISA) and viral neutralization test (VNT). Furthermore, the cellular immune responses were measured by lymphocyte proliferation assay (LPA).

resultsThe overall antibody titers to HS and FMDV were above cut-off values for the combined FMD-HS vaccine in this study.The mean antibody titer against HS after the first immunization in the combined FMD-HS vaccine groups was higher than in the HS vaccine groups. However, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between groups. Likewise, the antibody titer to the FMDV serotypes O/TAI/189/87 and Asia 1/TAI/85 determined by LPB-ELISA in the combined vaccine were not statistically significantly different when compared to the FMD vaccine groups. However, the mean VNT antibody titer of combined vaccine against serotype O was significantly higher than the VN titer of FMD vaccine groups (p < 0.05). Moreover, the LPA results showed that all vaccinated groups displayed significantly higher than the negative control (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, no differences in the lymphocyte responses were observed in comparisons between the groups (p > 0.05).

conclusionsThe combined FMD-HS vaccine formulated in this study could result in high both antibody and cellular immune responses without antigenic competition. Therefore, the combined FMD-HS vaccine can serve as an alternative vaccine against both HS and FMD in dairy cattle under field conditions.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleCattle DiseasesDairyingFemaleFoot-and-Mouth DiseaseFoot-and-Mouth Disease VirusHemorrhagic SepticemiaPasteurella multocidaThailandVaccinationVaccines, CombinedVaccines, CombinedCombination vaccineDairy cattleFoot and Mouth diseasePasteurella multocidarOmpH

Identifiers

PMID33952269
PMCPMC8097834
OpenAlexW3159534317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.