Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026

Chemical Inactivation of the E3 Ubiquitin Ligase Cereblon by Pomalidomide-based Homo-PROTACs
Published on: May 15, 2019
Pro and contra IBR-eradication
Mathias Ackermann1, Monika Engels
1Institute of Virology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 266a, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract:
Bovine herpesvirus type 1 (BoHV-1) is the causative agent of respiratory and genital tract infections such as infectious rhinotracheitis (IBR), infectious pustular vulvovaginitis (IPV, balanoposthitis (IBP), and abortion. Despite of a pronounced immune response, the virus is never eliminated from an infected host but establishes life-long latency and may be reactivated at intervals. Europe has a long history of fighting against BoHV-1 infections, yet, only a small number of countries has achieved IBR-eradication. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to review the reasoning pro and contra such a task. Clearly, the goal can indeed be achieved as has been demonstrated by a number of European countries. However, detection and stamping out of seemingly healthy virus carriers is inevitable in the process. Unfortunately, the use of vaccines is only of temporary and limited value. Therefore, there are numerous considerations to be put forward against such plans, including the high costs, the great risks, and the unsatisfactory quality of tools. If either control or eradication of IBR is nonetheless a goal, then better vaccines are needed as well as better companion tests. Moreover, better tools for the characterization of viral isolates are required. Collaborative actions to gather viral strains from as many countries as possible for inclusion into a newly created clustering library would be most advantageous.
Related Concept Videos
Production of Biopesticides
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null hypothesis and 'fail to...
Defenses Against Pathogens and Herbivores

