title: Comparison of different vaccination schedules for sustaining the immune response against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.
abstract: In order to better understand how immunization against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) can be improved using commercial vaccines, different strategies of immunization were applied in the field using an inactivated vaccine (INV), a modified live vaccine (MLV) or a combination of the two and the responses compared. In experiment 1 (E1), 21 piglets were distributed in three groups. Group A was vaccinated with a commercial INV at 2.5, 3.5 and 6.5 months old; group B pigs received the INV at 1.5, 2.5, 5.5 and 6.5 months old, while pigs in group C were kept as unvaccinated controls. At 7.5 months of age all pigs were challenged with PRRSV and followed for 21 days. In experiment 2 (E2), 32 piglets were distributed evenly in four groups. Groups A, B and C were vaccinated with a commercial MLV at 1.5 months old, while group D pigs were kept as controls. At 4.5 months old, groups A and C received the INV while B received a second MLV, 1 month later group C pigs received a third INV. At 6.5 months old all pigs were challenged as in E1. In both experiments, total antibodies, neutralizing antibodies (NA) and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) were evaluated, and viraemia was determined after challenge. In E1, immunization with an INV induced high interferon-γ responses after the second and subsequent vaccinations. Development of NA after challenge was faster in INV vaccinated pigs compared to unvaccinated controls. In E2, re-vaccination with INV induced NA responses similar to re-vaccination with MLV; however, a significant increase in NA titres after challenge was only detected in group C pigs. The use of combined protocols (MLV+INV) was superior to the use of MLV alone in inducing cell mediated immunity. In conclusion, the highest immune responses against PRRSV after a single shot were achieved with MLV; after that, INV re-vaccination should be considered as the best strategy to induce significant boosters.
authors.affiliation: Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), UAB-IRTA, Campus de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. ivan.diaz@cresa.uab.es
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Díaz
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gimeno
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Callén
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Pujols
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: López
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Charreyre
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Joisel
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Mateu
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / Q000662:veterinary; D007111:Immunity, Cellular; D056724:Immunity, Humoral; D007115:Immunization Schedule; D019318:Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome / Q000517:prevention & control* / Q000821:virology; D019316:Porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus / Q000276:immunology*; D013552:Swine; D014611:Vaccination; D014765:Viral Vaccines / Q000276:immunology*
chemical_list: D014765:Viral Vaccines
keywords: Cell-mediated immunity; Neutralizing antibodies; Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome; Vaccination