These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Immunity following use of Australian tick fever vaccine: a review of the evidence.
    Author: Bock RE, de Vos AJ.
    Journal: Aust Vet J; 2001 Dec; 79(12):832-9. PubMed ID: 11837905.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence available on the degree and duration of immunity provided by Australian tick fever vaccines against Babesia bovis, B. bigemina and Anaplasma marginale infections in Australia and overseas. BACKGROUND: Vaccines containing attenuated strains of B bovis and B bigemina as well as A. centrale grown in splenectomised calves have been used in Australia since 1964 to immunise cattle against tick fever. About 800,000 doses of vaccine are supplied annually and much of the evidence for protection is field evidence rather than conventional immunological measures or pen trials. CONCLUSIONS: Immunity to Babesia bovis and B. bigemina--A single inoculation generally provides sound, long-lasting protection both in Australia and overseas. No evidence was found of a loss of immunity with time. Vaccine failures to B. bovis do occur, but are uncommon and evidently caused by a number of factors, including immune responsiveness of the vaccinated animals, and immunogenicity of the vaccine strain. Immunity to Anaplasma marginale--The vaccine containing A. centrale provides partial, variable protection against A. marginale. Protection against challenge in Australia is adequate in most cases to prevent disease and use of the vaccine in this country appears to be justified. Protection against antigenically diverse, highly virulent stocks of A. marginale in other countries is, at times, clearly inadequate and better vaccines are required in situations where the challenge is severe.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]