Effect of attenuated Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae vaccine in pigs infected with porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome virus
Twenty second specific pathogen-free pigs were divided into 4 groups: Group A were infected with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus at 6 weeks of age and treated with available swine erysipelas and swine fever combined vaccine (vaccinated) at 7 weeks of age; Group B were vacc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 1997, Vol.59(11), pp.977-981 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Twenty second specific pathogen-free pigs were divided into 4 groups: Group A were infected with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus at 6 weeks of age and treated with available swine erysipelas and swine fever combined vaccine (vaccinated) at 7 weeks of age; Group B were vaccinated at 7 weeks of age and infected with PRRS virus at 8 weeks of age; Group C were vaccinated at 7 weeks of age: Group D were neither vaccinated nor infected with PRRS virus. All pigs were challenged to Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae C42 strains at 10 weeks of age. No clinical signs appeared after vaccination of group A and B pigs, thus confirming that the safety of the vaccine was not influenced by infection with PRRS virus. None of the pigs in Groups A and C developed erysipelas after challenge exposure to E. rhusiopathiae. In contrast, fever and/or urticaria appeared transiently in all pigs of Group B after challenge exposure. At the time of challenge exposure to E. rhusiopathiae, the PRRS virus titer was high in sera of Group B, but was low in those from Group A. However, vaccination of pigs with attenuated E. rhusiopathiae was effective in dual infection with PRRS virus and E. rhusiopathiae, because the clinical signs were milder and the E. rhusiopathiae strain was less recovered from these pigs compared to pigs of group D |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0916-7250 1347-7439 |
DOI: | 10.1292/jvms.59.977 |