Related Experiment Videos
Evaluation of vaccines for atrophic rhinitis--a comparison of three challenge models
1Veterinary Medical Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 18, H-1581 Budapest, Hungary. tibor@novell.vmri.hu
Abstract:
We compared three challenge models for the assessment of atrophic rhinitis (AR) vaccines: combined infection with Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) and Pasteurella multocida (Pm); application of acetic acid (AA) to the nasal mucosa followed by Pm infection; and Bb infection alone. Two vaccines were tested using standardized criteria, notably nasal lesion scores. The vaccines provided different levels of protection in the Bb and the AA/Pm challenges, but were similar in the combined (Bb/Pm) challenge. It is clear that the AA/Pm model shows the protective value of only the Pm component, whereas the single Bb challenge reflects the protective value merely of the Bb component of a combined vaccine. These results suggest that the best assessment of protection is provided if the two specific challenges are performed separately.
Insights
Assessing atrophic rhinitis (AR) vaccines requires specific challenge models. Separate challenges with Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) and Pasteurella multocida (Pm) better reflect vaccine efficacy than combined challenges.
Area of Science:
- Veterinary immunology
- Vaccine development
- Animal models of disease
Background:
- Atrophic rhinitis (AR) is a significant swine respiratory disease.
- Effective vaccines are crucial for controlling AR.
- Standardized challenge models are needed to accurately assess vaccine efficacy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of three challenge models for evaluating AR vaccines.
- To determine the most reliable method for assessing vaccine protection against Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) and Pasteurella multocida (Pm).
Main Methods:
- Three challenge models were evaluated: combined Bb and Pm infection, acetic acid (AA) followed by Pm infection, and Bb infection alone.
- Two AR vaccines were tested against these models.
- Nasal lesion scores were used as a primary criterion for assessment.
Main Results:
- Vaccines showed differential protection in Bb and AA/Pm challenges, but similar protection in the combined Bb/Pm challenge.
- The AA/Pm model specifically assessed protection against Pm.
- The Bb-alone model specifically assessed protection against Bb.
Conclusions:
- Separate challenge models (Bb alone and AA/Pm) provide a clearer assessment of individual vaccine components.
- Combined challenges mask the specific protective efficacy of each component.
- Performing specific challenges separately is recommended for optimal AR vaccine assessment.