Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T10:22:54.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antigenic analysis of SAT 2 serotype foot-and-mouth disease virus isolates from Zimbabwe using monoclonal antibodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

F. L. Davidson ,
J. R. Crowther ,
J. Nqindi ,
N. J. Knowles ,
S. J. Thevasagayam  and
C. J. Van Vuuren
F. L. Davidson
Affiliation:
BBSRC, Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0NF, UK
J. R. Crowther
Affiliation:
BBSRC, Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0NF, UK
J. Nqindi
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Institute, PO Box CY 551, Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe
N. J. Knowles
Affiliation:
BBSRC, Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0NF, UK
S. J. Thevasagayam
Affiliation:
BBSRC, Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright Laboratory, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0NF, UK
C. J. Van Vuuren
Affiliation:
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Laboratory, Private Bag X6, Onderstepoort, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper compares strains of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) serotype SAT (South African Territories) 2 viruses isolated from Zimbabwe and other African countries using monoclonal antibodies (MAb). A sandwich-ELISA was used to examine the relative binding of anti-SAT 2 MAb to the various viruses. The MAb-binding profiles of viruses isolated from field samples were compared using hierarchical cluster analysis. Viruses were obtained from game animals, mainly African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) which is the natural host and reservoir for SAT serotypes in Africa, and from cattle showing clinical signs of FMD, as well as from animals suspected of carrying the virus subclinically. Some isolates have been adapted for use as vaccine strains. The results showed that most of the Zimbabwe isolates collected between 1989 and 1992 were an antigenically closely-related group. Although differences were observed between Zimbabwe isolates collected between 1989 and 1992 and those collected in 1987, there was no correlation with the different MAb binding patterns within the 1987 group and the epidemiological information received from the field. Similar profiles were observed for many SAT 2 viruses, including viruses isolated over a 50-year period and from geographically distant areas. This indicates an inherent stability in antigenic profiles of SAT 2 viruses. The MAb panel was capable of assessing antigenic variation, since very different profiles were obtained for some isolates. The work also allowed comparison and characterization of anti-type SAT 2 MAb from different laboratories. The findings are discussed with reference to selection of vaccine strains.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 115 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 193 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

1.Condy, JB. A history of foot and mouth disease in Rhodesia. Rhod Vet J 1979; 101: 2–10.Google Scholar
2.Crowther, JR, Rowe, CA, Butcher, R. Characterization of monoclonal antibodies against a type SAT 2 foot-and-mouth disease virus. Epidemiol Infect 1993; 111: 391–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hedger, RS, Stubbins, AGJ. The carrier state in foot-and-mouth disease, and the probang test. State Vet Journal 1971; 26: 45–50.Google Scholar
4.Vosloo, W, Knowles, NJ, Thomson, GR. Genetic relationships between southern African SAT-2 isolates of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Epidemiol Infect 1992; 109: 547–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Samuel, AR, Knowles, NJ, Saumel, GD, Crowther, JR. Evaluation of a trapping ELISA for the differentiation of foot-and-mouth disease virus strains using monoclonal antibodies. Biologicals 1991; 19: 229–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Ferris, NP, Donaldson, AI. Serological response of guinea pigs to inactivated 146S antigens of foot-and-mouth disease virus after single or repeated inoculations. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 1984; 3: 563–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Crowther, JR, Farias, S, Carpenter, WC, Samuel, AR. Identification of a fifth neutralisable site on type O foot-and-mouth disease virus following characterization of single and quintuple monoclonal antibody escape mutants. J Gen Virol 1993; 74: 1547–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Pay, TWF, Rweyemamu, MM, O'Reilly, KJ. Experiences with type SAT 2 foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in Southern Africa. Bull Off Int Epiz 1978; 89: 899–927.Google Scholar