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: Calf immunization protocols with low-virulence isolates of Anaplasma marginale: Analysis of post-inoculation effects and protection against natural challenge.
    Author: Mendonça FLM, Coelho MF, Bastos CV, da Silveira JAG, Nicolino RR, Uribe JAZ, Ribeiro MFB, Silvestre BT, Meneses RM, de Carvalho AÚ, Moreira TF, Facury-Filho EJ.
    Journal: Ticks Tick Borne Dis; 2024 Sep 20; 16(1):102394. PubMed ID: 39305677.
    Abstract:
    Bovine anaplasmosis is endemic and is of fundamental importance worldwide. Therefore, measures for controlling and preventing clinical diseases are warranted to ensure the reduction of associated economic losses. The objective of the present study was to assess the post-inoculation effects and protection conferred by three different protocols of inoculation of low-virulence live strains of Anaplasma marginale (UFMG1 and UFMG3) in field-challenged cattle. Sixty-eight Holstein calves with an average age of 17 days were randomly divided into four groups. The groups received two subcutaneous administrations spaced 40 days apart, at a dosage of 2 × 106 infected erythrocytes of the following A. marginale strains: G1 (UFMG1 + UFMG1); G2 (UFMG3 + UFMG3); G3 (UFMG1 + UFMG3); and G4 (control). Every two days, the animals were evaluated for rectal temperature, Packed Cell Volume (PCV), and blood smears. Blood samples were collected prior to inoculation, before the field challenge, and after the challenge period, nPCR and IFAT techniques were performed. There were no significant differences in rickettsemia levels, reduction in PCV, or antibody detection among the different inoculation strategies. Forty days after the second inoculation, 90 %, 84.6 %, and 90.9 % of the animals in G1, G2, and G3, respectively, tested positive using nPCR. After inoculation, the group G2, which received the UFMG3 inoculum, had a higher frequency of treatment (odds ratio of 6.7; 1.198-38.018 CI; p = 0.03), while groups G1 and G3 demonstrated similar treatment frequencies compared to the control. During the natural challenge phase, 13.3 % of animals in group G1 required treatment (odds ratio of 0.108; 0.018-0.635 CI; p = 0.014) compared to 58.8 % of the control group. Considering the results collectively, the protocol using the UFMG1 strain (G1) stands out for its potential to be safe and induce some degree of immunization against A. marginale, reducing the incidence of clinical disease and the need for treatment during natural challenge.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]