Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:58:27.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro method for safety testing of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. C. Anderson ,
P. B. Capstick ,
G. N. Mowat  and
F. B. Leech
E. C. Anderson
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey
P. B. Capstick
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey
G. N. Mowat
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey
F. B. Leech
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
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.

The susceptibility of the tissue culture system to small amounts of residual live virus was not influenced by the inactivated antigen present. The depth of inoculum over the cell sheet did not affect results. Negative cultures frequently gave positive first (but not second or later) sub-cultures.

Baby hamster kidney cells were always more sensitive than cattle tongues to infection with any of the strains used.

Confidence in the safety test depends on the number of vaccination doses used; the tissue culture test can be made much more reliable than the cattle test because it is not limited to the 15 ml. of inoculum that restricts the cattle test.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 159 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

References

REFERENCES

Gard, S. (1960). Theoretical considerations in the inactivation of viruses by chemical means. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 83, 638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, W. M. (1949). The quantitative study of foot-and-mouth disease. Agricultural Research Council Report Series no.8 London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Henderson, W. M. (1952 a). A comparison of different routes of inoculation of cattle for detection of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Journal of Hygiene 50, 183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, W. M. (1952 b). Significance of tests for non-infectivity of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Journal of Hygiene 50, 195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyslop, N. & Skinner, H. H. (1964). A note on the interpretation of infectivity titres of foot-and-mouth disease virus based on cattle tongue titrations. Bulletin de l'Office International des Épizooties 61, 1091.Google Scholar
Macpherson, I. A. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1962). Polyoma transformation of hamster cell clones—an investigation of genetic factors affecting cell competence. Virology 16, 147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, J. A. (1968). A program to fit constants to multiway tables of quantitative and quantal data. Applied Statistics 17, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peto, S. & Maidment, B. J. (1969). Tables of the upper limit to the estimate of the density of contaminating particles in a medium. Journal of Hygiene 67, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, H. H. (1951). Propagation of strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus in unweaned white mice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 44, 1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed