PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Erysipelothrix”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

Experiments with a model of aerosol immunization of mice and swine against Erysipelothrix insidiosa (E. i.).

Whole antigens as well as antigen fractions from E.i. were tested as aerosol vaccines. The aerosol produced by a jet nebulizer (Pari, Standard 088) with a capacity of 15 1 air per min and about 10g vaccine per hour was tested by size measuring of the aerosol particles and bacteriological evidence of E.i. in lung tissue. The main concern of the studies was to test the immunogenicity for laboratory animals which were exposed to the vaccines in a modified Henderson apparatus or in boxes of 30 1 respectively. Vaccination trials with conventional mice and piglets did not produce 100% protection against challenge infection by aerosol or subcutaneous route. Experiments with gnotobiotic piglets resulted in sufficient immunity against aerosol challenge with 100 LD50 when aerosols with living avirulent bacteria (strain B 10) were applied three times for one hour or once during three hours. A commercial vaccine from lyzed bacteria immunized only when aerosols were applied three times for three hours. For further immunological evaluation the sera of piglets were tested by means of an indirect fluorescent technique and by other serological methods.

Aerosols↗

Evaluation of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae vaccines in pigs by intradermal challenge and immune responses.

In a vaccine trial, pigs were challenged intradermally with eight E. rhusiopathiae strains of serovars 1a, 1b or 2 given concurrently. The strains were derived from six herds affected with vaccine breakdowns in 1997-1999, one herd without vaccine breakdown and a serovar 2 reference strain. Responses to two commercial bacterins (one implicated in the vaccine breakdowns), and two experimental bacterins (based on field isolates from affected herds) showed distinct differences in protection, particularly in clinical responses measured at 72 h. Less protection was afforded against serovar 1 challenge by the vaccine implicated in the vaccine breakdowns. Antibody and cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses were significantly different between treatments, and highlighted a similar post-vaccinal antibody response was produced against serovar 2 lysate by all vaccines, but only those providing significant protection against serovar 1 [corrected] produced significantly elevated antiserovar I lysate [corrected] antibodies. Vaccination in general significantly reduced CMI responses to the mitogens concanavalin A and phytohaemagglutinin. This experimental pig challenge system was readily able to confirm suboptimal performance of a commercial bacterin that had passed potency tests in mice but was associated with vaccine failure in commercial herds. This vaccine was also the most immunosuppressive to CMI responses associated with E. rhusiopathiae-specific and non-specific stimulation. The best vaccine response was associated with the highest mean serovar 1 antibody response and the highest CMI response (by lymphoproliferation assay) to serovar 2.

Animals↗