Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:15:31.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A live vaccine from Brucella abortus strain 82 for control of cattle brucellosis in the Russian Federation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2011

Arkady V. Ivanov ,
Konstantin M. Salmakov ,
Steven C. Olsen  and
Glenn E. Plumb
Arkady V. Ivanov
Affiliation:
Federal Center for the Toxicological and Radiation Safety of Animals, All-Russian Institute of Veterinary Research, Kazan, Russia
Konstantin M. Salmakov
Affiliation:
Federal Center for the Toxicological and Radiation Safety of Animals, All-Russian Institute of Veterinary Research, Kazan, Russia
Steven C. Olsen*
Affiliation:
Infectious Bacterial Diseases Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service, Ames, IA, USA
Glenn E. Plumb
Affiliation:
Yellowstone National Park, WY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: solsen@nadc.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the first half of the twentieth century, widespread regulatory efforts to control cattle brucellosis due to Brucella abortus in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were essentially non-existent, and control was limited to selective test and slaughter of serologic agglutination reactors. By the 1950s, 2–3 million cattle were being vaccinated annually with the strain 19 vaccine, but because this vaccine induced strong, long-term titers on agglutination tests that interfered with identification of cattle infected with field strains of B. abortus, its use in cattle was discontinued in 1970. Soviet scientists then began a comprehensive program of research to identify vaccines with high immunogenicity, weak responses on agglutination tests and low pathogenicity in humans, as a foundation for widespread control of cattle brucellosis. While several new vaccines that induced weak or no responses on serologic agglutination tests were identified by experiments in guinea pigs and cattle, a large body of experimental and field studies suggested that the smooth–rough strain SR82 vaccine combined the desired weak agglutination test responses with comparatively higher efficacy against brucellosis. In 1974, prior to widespread use of strain SR82 vaccine, over 5300 cattle farms across the Russian Federation were known to be infected with B. abortus. By January 2008, only 68 cattle farms in 18 regions were known to be infected with B. abortus, and strain SR82 continues to be the most widely and successfully used vaccine in many regions of the Russian Federation.

Keywords

brucellabrucellosisvaccineRussiastrain 82
Type
Review Article
Information
Animal Health Research Reviews , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , June 2011 , pp. 113 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alekseev, KK, Lokin, AK and Zhukov, PF (1980). Importance of targeted prevention in the system of antibrucellosis measures. The Kazakh Veterinary Institute 136: 82–84.Google Scholar
Avilov, VM (1997). Epizootological oversight for brucellosis of cattle in a modern environment. Master's thesis in Veterinary Sciences, St. Petersburg State Academy of Veterinary Medicine, St. Petersburg, Russia.Google Scholar
Avilov, VM, Salmakov, KM and Novitskii, AA (2000). Control of bovine brucellosis with use of the vaccine from strain 82. Veterinariya 3: 3–8.Google Scholar
Bazalei, FK, Evtenko, LT and Evstafiadi, KM (1980). Results of using the brucellosis vaccine from the weakly agglutinogenic strain 82 in cattle. The Kazan Veterinary Institute 135: 84–90.Google Scholar
Guliukin, MI, Al'bertian, MP, Iskandarov, MI, Fedorov, AI, Borovoi, VN and Kolomytsev, SA (2008). The effectiveness of vaccines against brucellosis in Russia. Zhurnal Veterinariia 9: 7–12.Google Scholar
Iskhakov, OZ, Karpenko, IG, Kuzmin, GG, Avilov, VM and Ionisyan, AI (1980). Results of the use of the anti-brucellosis vaccine from strain 82 on farms in the Russian Federation. Research Papers of the Kazan State Veterinary Institute 135: 27–34.Google Scholar
Ivanov, MM, Salmakov, KM, Formin, AM and Plotnikova, EM (2006). Investigation and results of using new preparations for the specific prophylaxis of cattle brucellosis. Veterinarnyi Vrach 1: 14–18.Google Scholar
Ivanov, MM, Salmakov, KM, Malakhova, TI and Shumilov, KV (1977). Results of studying Brucella vaccine strains. Papers from the Russian National Center for Quality and Standardization of Animal Drugs and Food (VGNKI) 23: 94–103.Google Scholar
Kalmykov, VV and Bobylev, AN (2000). Prophylactic effectiveness of immunization of cattle with the adjuvant vaccine from strain B. abortus KB 17/100. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Infectious and Invasive Diseases. Bauman Kazan State Academy of Veterinary Medicine, Kazan. pp 69–70.Google Scholar
Kosilov, IA, Arakelian, PK, Dimov, SK and Khlystunov, AG (1999). In: Kosilova, IA (ed.) Brucellosis in Farm Animals. Novosibirsk, pp. 1–344.Google Scholar
Krasheninnikova, LA, Belozerova, GA and Salmakov, KM (1978). Study of the stable properties of vaccine strain 82. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Vetinstituta 129: 48–52.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, NA and Salmakov, KM (1980). Results of verifying the properties of separate batches of the dry live brucellosis vaccine from strain 82. Research Papers KVI 135: 48–60.Google Scholar
Nikiforov, IP, Shumilov, KV and Dimov, SK (1996). Results of studying the abortifacient properties of vaccine strain B. abortus 75–79AB under farm-scale conditions. In: Proceedings of the Scientific Conference Dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Krasnodar Research Veterinary Station, pp. 79–82.Google Scholar
Nikiforov, IP, Shumilov, KV, Klimanov, AI, Shikhaleev, YuN, Kalmykov, VV and Solntseva, EN (1993). Study of the adaptability, virulence, and possible migration of strain 75–79A. In: Collection of Scientific Works of the Institute of Experimental Veterinary Science of Siberia and the Far East. Novosibirsk, Elsevier, pp. 66–73.Google Scholar
Nikiforov, IP, Razumovskaya, VV and Stepanov, VA (1995a). Approbation of the vaccine from strain 75–79-AB B. abortus in cattle. Veterinariya 8: 20–23.Google Scholar
Nikiforov, IP, Razumovskaya, VV, Bokova, TV, Stepanov, VA and Korzh, GS (1995b). Study of the optimal immunizing dose of the brucellosis vaccine from strain B. abortus 75/79-AB. Veterinariya 12: 29–32.Google Scholar
Oshchepkov, VG (2007). Natural and specific resistance of humans and animals in Siberia. In: Omsk Papers of the 6th International Research and Development Conference dedicated to the 85th Anniversary of the Russian National Science and Research Institute of Animal Brucellosis and Tuberculosis and the Siberian Science and Research Veterinary Institute, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1960). Study of the antigenic and immunogenic properties of Brucella strains. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Vetinstituta 90: 170–174.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1964). Identifying new Brucella vaccine strains. Synopsis of a Thesis, Candidate in Veterinary Sciences, Kazan, p. 20.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1966). Study of immunity in guinea pigs and cattle, immunized with vaccine strains 19 and 82. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Vetinstituta 97: 125–129.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1974a). Results of the study of vaccine strain 82 and its testing in cattle under field conditions. Proceedings of the All-Union Scientific Conference 1: 154–156.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1974b). Testing of the strain 82 vaccine in cattle during recovery of farms from brucellosis. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Vetinstituta 115: 151–157.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1975). Live vaccine against cattle brucellosis from strain 82. Veterinariia 7: 43–45.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1977). Identifying and testing new Brucella strains for vaccines. Ph.D. thesis in Veterinary Sciences, All-Russian Research Veterinary Institute, Kazan, Russia.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM (1987). Research and improvement of brucellosis vaccines. In: Proceedings of Research Conference, Novosibirsk, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM and Abdullin, KH (1965). Testing of Brucella strain 82 as a live vaccine under experimental and practical conditions. Research Papers of the Kazan State Veterinary Institute 96: 38–45.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM, Abuzarov, YuSh and Kirshin, VA (1980). Live vaccine from strain 82 and its effectiveness in the prophylaxis and eradication of brucellosis. The Kazan Veterinary Institute 135: 27–34.Google Scholar
Salmakov, KM, Fomin, AM, Plotnikova, EM, Safina, GM, Galimova, GM, Salmakov, AV, Ivanov, AV, Panin, AN, Sklyarov, OD, Shumilov, KV and Klimanov, AI. (2010). Comparative study of the immunobiological properties of live brucellosis vaccines. Vaccine 285: F35–F40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumilov, KV, Sklyarov, O and Klimanov, A 2010. Designing vaccines against cattle brucellosis. Vaccine 285: F31–F34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklyarov, O, Shumilov, K, Klimanov, A and Densiov, A (2010). Targeted prevention of brucellosis in cattle, sheep, and goats in the Russian Federation. Vaccine 28S: F54–F58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklyarov, OD and Shumilov, KV (2005). Brucellosis in animals in Russia and its specific prophylaxis. Research Papers VGNKI 65: 150–182.Google Scholar