Defining correlates of protection for mammalian livestock vaccines against high-priority viral diseases

Abstract

Enhancing livestock biosecurity is critical to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers, global and local economies, and food security. Vaccination is fundamental to the control and prevention of exotic and endemic high-priority infectious livestock diseases. Successful implementation of vaccination in a biosecurity plan is underpinned by a strong understanding of correlates of protection—those elements of the immune response that can reliably predict the level of protection from viral challenge. While correlates of protection have been successfully characterized for many human viral vaccines, for many high-priority livestock viral diseases, including African swine fever and foot and mouth disease, they remain largely uncharacterized. Current literature provides insights into potential correlates of protection that should be assessed during vaccine development for these high-priority mammalian livestock viral diseases. Establishment of correlates of protection for biosecurity purposes enables immune surveillance, rationale for vaccine development, and successful implementation of livestock vaccines as part of a biosecurity strategy.

1 Introduction

Biosecurity involves implementation of measures to minimize the risk of introducing and spreading pathogens within and between farms, between humans and animals, and within the environment (1, 2). The development of biosecurity programs requires a strong scientific basis and the use of risk assessment to evaluate and implement appropriate measures without unnecessarily hindering commerce and trade (1, 2). Many measures are utilized to prevent and control exotic and endemic high-priority viral animal diseases ranging from animal husbandry practices to culling of infected animals or herds (1, 2). Livestock vaccines can further bolster biosecurity strategies and contribute significantly to the overall health and productivity of animal populations (Figure 1) (3, 4). While the immune response to infection with many high-priority viral livestock diseases is well characterized, the protective immune response to a subsequent infection and the relationship to vaccine-mediated protection are incomplete. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of protective immunity and vaccine-induced correlates of protection (CoPs) for high-priority mammalian livestock viral diseases in the context of biosecurity (Table 1). We selected six examples of viral diseases notifiable to the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), namely, foot and mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever (ASF), lumpy skin disease (LSD), bluetongue (BT), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), and classical swine fever (CSF) (Table 1). These specific diseases were selected as they are high-consequence viral diseases in mammalian livestock, for which vaccination is or aims to be employed as part of a biosecurity and control strategy. Furthermore, these diseases represent diversity in the presentation of disease and the immune responses associated with protection and include both RNA and DNA viruses.

Figure 1

2 Vaccination in response to high-priority livestock viral diseases

Viral vaccines typically comprise a part of the virus (e.g., sub-unit or recombinant protein), whole viral particles with reduced virulence [e.g., live-attenuated viral (LAV) vaccine], or inactivated viral particles (inactivated vaccine) (121). For the example diseases discussed here, licensed vaccines are most commonly LAVs or inactivated vaccines; however, subunit vaccines for PRRSV and CSFV have also been licensed (Table 1). LAVs generally induce strong cellular and humoral immune responses compared to inactivated and subunit vaccines (13, 122, 123). Inactivated and subunit vaccines generally confer protection through humoral immunity; however, inclusion of adjuvants, appropriate antigen selection, and additional doses can induce cell-mediated immunity (CMI) (13, 122, 123) (Table 1). Vaccination can be applied as part of a response to an incursion of a high-priority viral disease to limit the spread and eventually eradicate the disease (Figures 1A, B) (124, 125). For example, cattle plague caused by rinderpest virus led to an approximately 20% loss of dairy cattle in Europe during the 20th century (126). The elimination of rinderpest virus was achieved in 2011 through multi-organizational campaigns implementing vaccines as a prevention measure as part of a global biosecurity plan (126). Furthermore, control of FMD outbreaks has been achieved through vaccination programs in South Africa and Uruguay (127, 128). Livestock vaccination is an effective biosecurity measure to reduce the economic impact of high-priority livestock diseases (Figure 1). However, the implementation of such vaccines varies between countries and is contingent on various factors including cost, vaccine availability, epidemiological factors, regulatory considerations, and host distribution, and may require vaccine matching to the outbreak strain. For example, a LAV ASFV vaccine has recently been approved for use in Vietnam to help control this devastating virus (129). However, in ASF-free countries such as Australia, this vaccine is not approved due to the risks associated with the use of an ASFV LAV (e.g., reversion to virulence) and is not currently part of Australia’s emergency response plan to an ASF outbreak (130). A major advantage of non-LAV or inactivated vaccine platforms is that these vaccines can be designed in parallel with DIVA diagnostic assays to help inform the culling strategy of an outbreak in an endemic area and facilitate trade.

3 Defining correlates of protection

In addition to clinical signs, protection can be defined by duration and levels of viremia, viral load in tissues, shedding, and transmission to naive or unvaccinated bystander animals (131). Notably, induction of sterilizing immunity (i.e., preventing replication of the virus) following vaccination is the gold standard level of protection (132). Measurable immune features or correlates, including antibodies, cytokines, or T cells, which are statistically associated with and can reliably predict protection, are defined as CoPs (Figures 1E, F) (131). Many factors influence the contribution of an immune feature to protection, including the vaccine delivery platform, antigen(s), host genetics, and the target viral disease (133). CoP analysis assesses the strength of the relationship between the immune feature and protection using animals with varying levels of protection—either immunized/vaccinated animals or naturally resistant animals (131, 134). Single or multiple immune features may be associated with protection for a given disease or vaccine.

Studying the levels of protection achieved through active and passive (transfer of immune sera or antibodies) immunization (134) can provide key insights into the immune response associated with protection and can enable identification of CoPs (Table 1). Notably, much of what is known currently about protective immunity against the focus diseases in this review has come from research on vaccine candidates currently in development, with the exception of commercial vaccines listed in Table 1.

4 Innate immune features as correlates of protection

4.1 Antigen-presenting cell function and counts

Depletion of key antigen-presenting cells including macrophages, monocytes, and/or DCs transiently occurs in animals during infection with ASFV, PRRSV, BTV, FMDV, LSDV, and CSFV (135–138). Depletion of these immune cell subsets during acute infection ultimately hinders the development of protective immunity. Furthermore, downregulation of MHC class I and/or MHC class II expression during FMDV (139), ASFV (140), and PRRSV (141) infection hampers antigen presentation and impairs T-cell responses. Therefore, measuring the number, viability, and MHC expression of these cells could act as an early indicator of vaccine success or failure (Figures 1C-E). However, such changes in cell counts can vary with strain and virulence, as seen in ASFV infection of pigs (142).

4.2 Natural killer cells

Natural killer (NK) cells elicit cytotoxic functions through secretion of cytotoxic molecules (perforin and granzyme) and cytokines, including interferon gamma (IFNγ) and tissue necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) (143). NK cells mediate cytotoxicity directly via cytotoxic molecules or indirectly via antibodies (see Section 5.2) (Figure 1E). NK responses are suppressed following infection with ASFV, FMDV, and PRRSV; however, vaccination can retain NK cell activity (35, 90, 144). Notably, protected pigs showed elevated NK cell cytotoxicity and cytokine secretion compared to non-protected pigs following PRRSV LAV vaccination (Table 1) (35). Similarly, enhanced NK cell activity has also been observed in pigs immunized with a low virulent strain of ASFV upon subsequent challenge with a highly virulent strain, compared to unimmunized pigs (Table 1) (90). Finally, NK cells have shown high levels of cytotoxicity in vitro in bovine and porcine cells infected with FMDV (144, 145). Collectively, the literature suggests that the functional response and frequency of NK cells could be assessed as an indicator of vaccine-mediated protection in the host for ASFV, FMDV, and PRRSV. However, the contribution of NK cells in protective immunity remains to be assessed for CSFV, LSDV, and BTV (Table 1).

4.3 Type I interferon

Viral proteins frequently inhibit the host’s Type I interferon (IFN) production during natural infection via various mechanisms (146–151). Type I IFNs, including IFNα and IFNβ, are anti-viral cytokines secreted by monocytes, macrophages, DCs, and NK cells. In vitro studies where virus-infected cells were treated with Type I IFNs have highlighted the potential for these cytokines to inhibit viral replication of BTV (152), ASFV (153), PRRSV (154), CSFV (155), and FMDV (156). Similarly, elevated Type I IFNs have been implicated in protection from homologous challenge following vaccination for BTV (13, 23) and PRRSV (157). Type I IFN adjuvanted vaccines have protected animals from clinical signs and viremia early post-vaccination in the absence of humoral immunity for FMDV (71, 72) and CSFV (116), providing strong evidence for the contribution of Type I IFN in early protective immunity. Interestingly, the contribution of Type I IFN to protection against FMDV appears to be host specific. Elevated levels of protection have been demonstrated in pigs in contrast to cattle using Adenovirus (Ad5) vectored vaccination adjuvanted with host-specific Type I IFN (71, 72). Notably, elevated levels of Type I IFNs following vaccination—either generated by the vaccine or the adjuvant—can enhance the antibody response, which can subsequently promote a long-lived adaptive immune response (116, 158). The potential role of Type I IFNs in early protection from infection with BTV, PRRSV, CSFV, and FMDV is well established (Table 1). As for ASFV, IFNα may play a role in vaccine-induced recall response to challenge (87), although the definitive role of IFN and other cytokines in protection from ASFV requires further investigation in protected animals. Similarly, the role of Type I IFN in protection from LSDV has not been assessed and should be investigated further.

4.4 Balancing immunopathology and protective immunity

Clinical signs associated with systemic disease caused by ASFV (159–161), BTV (30, 162, 163), PRRSV (146, 164), LSDV (165), and CSV (166, 167) are commonly associated with a “cytokine storm” where overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines occurs, leading to extensive immunopathology. The “cytokine storm” has not been reported for FMDV (168). Infection of natural hosts with virulent strains of these viruses have been associated with high levels of cytokines including IL-6, TNFα, IL-1β, IL-8, IFNγ, and/or Type I IFNs (169–178). However, when pro-inflammatory cytokines are generated in a regulated manner to these viruses, they have anti-viral potential (13, 30, 73, 117, 173, 179, 180) and are essential to orchestrating the adaptive protective immune response (87, 181) (Figure 1E) (Table 1). Measurement of cytokines, such as interleukin-2 (IL-2) or IFN gamma (IFNγ), are commonly used as a surrogate measure of CMI and vaccine immunogenicity (182–184). Most notably, protection from FMDV and CSFV has been correlated to IFNγ secretion by T cells (58, 73, 109). Similarly, IFNγ secretion by T cells has also been linked to protection from PRRSV, but does not fully predict protection (36). Furthermore, elevated levels of these cytokines post-vaccination are not always a reliable indicator of protection. Several candidate ASFV vaccines are considered immunogenic and induce a robust IFNγ response but are not protective (88, 160, 185). Owing to secretion of IFNγ by multiple immune cell subsets (various T cells, macrophages, NK cells, etc.), caution must be taken when making conclusions about the role of specific subsets in protection based on such data. Importantly, protection elicited by the innate immune response is not strain specific and, thus, may generate cross-protection to viruses with high antigenic diversity, including BTV, ASFV, and FMDV, and should be studied using vaccinated protected natural hosts (14, 87). The role of cytokines in protection from LSDV remains a large gap in knowledge and, thus, should be studied further (7–9). It is important to note that many different cytokines have a role in protective immunity for these diseases, and therefore, research should aim to investigate cytokines beyond IFNγ as CoPs (30, 37, 44, 59, 60, 118).

5 Humoral immune features as correlates of protection

Following vaccination against a virus of interest, B cells will become activated and differentiate into long-lived memory B cells or short-lived antibody secreting cells called plasmablasts. Antibodies generated from these cells recognize specific epitopes of viral antigens that are exposed on the virion or expressed on the cell surface of infected cells. Antibodies can occur as neutralizing or non-neutralizing antibodies and can elicit various protective immune functions.

5.1 Neutralizing antibodies

The most-utilized CoPs are neutralizing antibody (Nab) titers, with higher antibody titers commonly linked to increased protection (Figures 1E, F). Reduced viral loads and the absence of clinical disease have consistently been associated with higher Nab titers following passive immunization or vaccination against FMDV (sheep, cattle, and pigs) (62–64, 81), PRRSV (15, 32, 51, 54, 55), BTV (15, 26, 27, 31), and CSFV (107, 110, 111, 117, 120) (Table 1). Sterilizing immunity is associated with high Nab titers for PRRSV (54, 186), CSFV (187), and BTV (188, 189). Notably, the longevity of the vaccine-induced Nab response can vary among different vaccines for different diseases (189, 190). While strong Nab responses to PRRSV, FMDV, and BTV can induce strong protection to homologous strains, vaccine-induced protection mediated by Nabs is often strain/genotype specific, due to high levels of antigenic diversity. However, induction of broadly reactive Nabs following active or passive immunization can confer high levels of cross-protection against different strains of PRRSV and CSFV (55, 120, 191). It is also important to note that vaccination against PRRSV, FMDV, and BTV in several instances can elicit protection in the absence of Nabs (192–197).

The role of Nabs in protection from ASFV is a topic of contention. While protection from lethal ASFV infection has been correlated to Nab titers by Silva et al. (2022) (91) following LAV vaccination, many other studies have reported that Nabs were not sufficient for protection following vaccination, for example, with subunit vaccines (Table 1) (198, 199). Similarly, while Nabs can protect cattle against LSDV infection, Nabs are not a reliable indicator of protection following vaccination against LSDV as not all vaccinated animals that are fully protected against LSDV seroconvert (10, 11) (Table 1). This highlights the risk of assessing Nab titers as the sole CoP in all contexts.

5.2 Non-neutralizing antibodies and Fc effector functions

Antibodies bound to viral particles or viral antigens expressed on infected cells engage with Fc receptors (FcRs) on immune cells (e.g., macrophages, DCs, monocytes, and NK cells), resulting in the activation of Fc effector functions. Fc effector functions include antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), which clear viral particles and kill infected cells to reduce disease severity (Figure 1E) (200, 201). Furthermore, Fc effector functions can enhance cross-protection due to the combined breadth of antibody targets recognized by neutralizing and non-Nabs (202, 203). While the mechanism of protection mediated by non-Nabs is poorly understood, phagocytosis has been shown to play a role. Phagocytosis of FMDV by macrophages was observed in mice that received FMDV non-neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment and were protected from FMDV challenge, compared to untreated mice that succumbed to infection (65, 82, 83). ADCC has been identified as a potential CoP for ASFV. Elevated levels of ADCC were observed in surviving pigs following passive transfer of anti-ASFV immune sera and following serial immunization with attenuated ASFV compared to non-immunized susceptible pigs (99, 104, 105). However, the contribution of ASFV-specific ADCC to protection is likely vaccine dependent (204).

In rare instances, vaccine-induced antibodies may play a role in antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infections where viral immune complexes are phagocytosed by immune cells and lead to a productive infection (205). ADE in livestock viral infections has been speculated for ASFV, PRRSV, and FMDV (206–208). Most literature surrounding ADE stems from in vitro assays where enhanced levels of viral replication have been detected in the presence of serum antibodies (206). Although well described for dengue virus (209), ADE remains controversial for these livestock diseases as the small number of in vivo studies reported have shown limited evidence of ADE occurring (206, 210).

Research on Fc effector functions such as CoPs has been limited or absent for ASFV, CSFV, BTV, LSDV, PRRSV, and, to a lesser extent, FMDV (Table 1). Thus, there is a need to characterize the role of vaccine-induced Fc effector functions in protection using in vivo models for these livestock diseases to make meaningful conclusions.

6 Cellular immune features as correlates of protection

Cytotoxic or killer T cells (CD8+ T cells) and T helper (Th) cells (CD4+ T cells) play a major role in viral immunity (Figure 1E). The function of T cells for livestock vaccine studies is commonly measured using IFNγ ELISpot, proliferation assays, and flow cytometry. T-cell response can target both structural and non-structural viral proteins, compared to antibody responses, which are generally more effective against structural proteins.

6.1 T cell-dependent antibody response

CD4+ T cells have a key role in generating strong protective humoral immunity through the development of T cell-dependent antibody responses against BTV (211), ASFV (212), and FMDV (213) and should be investigated for CSFV, PRRSV, and LSDV (Table 1). Notably, the depletion of CD4+ helper T cells in sheep enhanced clinical signs of BTV primary infection and impaired the development of Nabs, thus highlighting the importance of these cells in the development of protective antibody-mediated immunity (31). The level of T-cell dependency for generating an antibody response is likely antigen dependent (31). However, while BTV-specific CD4+ helper T-cell responses appear to be crucial in the development of a primary antibody response, CD4+ helper T cells were not activated/expanded in vitro following stimulation (180), and therefore may play a limited role in the memory response to challenge. Measurement of CD4+ T cells could provide a strong indicator of vaccine failure during vaccine development.

6.2 Cytotoxic T lymphocyte response and cell-mediated immunity

Both CD4+ T cells and/or CD8+ T cells can perform antiviral functions through the release of cytotoxic molecules (perforin and granzymes) and cytokines (IFNγ, TNFα, and IL-2), which trigger apoptosis of the infected cell (214). Double-positive CD4+CD8+ T cells are considered a porcine effector memory subset of CD4+ T cells and are strong inducers of cytotoxicity and secretion of IFNγ, and are a major feature in the memory/recall response to vaccination (215). Polyfunctional T-cell responses have been described as important for protective immunity and cross-protection post-vaccination, including proliferation, cytokine secretion, and cytotoxicity for BTV (14, 31), ASFV (87, 92, 93, 182), FMDV (58, 61, 66–68, 216), CSFV (112–114), and PRRSV (42, 47, 217) (Table 1). Intriguingly, unlike the other viruses discussed in this review where Nabs—to homologous strains—are likely to be the primary CoP, CMI appears to be the primary CoP for ASFV (Table 1) (89, 218, 219). Following vaccination against LSDV, T-cell responses increase; however, the functional role of these cells is yet to be studied (9, 11). The importance of CD8+ T cells in protection from ASFV was highlighted through depletion of CD8+ cells (T cells and NK cells) from pigs immunized against ASFV, resulting in complete loss of protection in these pigs to ASFV challenge, compared to total protection observed in pigs immunized with CD8+ cells (92). Finally, early protection elicited post-vaccination is likely to be cell mediated as observed with the CSFV C-strain LAV, which induced protective immunity in the absence of Nabs, associated with CD4+ T-cell proliferation and IFNγ production (220). While total T-cell responses are commonly assessed, antigen-specific T-cell responses have been rarely characterized against high-priority viral diseases of livestock discussed in this review, and the protective potential of other T-cell subsets remains poorly characterized; for example, γδ (gamma delta) T cells and NK T cells.

6.3 T regulatory responses as markers of vaccine failure

It is important to note that some subsets of T cells elicit regulatory functions (221). Known as Tregs, these cells secrete high concentrations of the immunoregulatory IL-10, and excess induction of these responses has been associated with vaccine failure for ASFV (218) and poor clinical outcomes during infection with PRRSV (222, 223). Upregulation of IL-10 following PRRSV vaccination also resulted in reduced induction of an immune response to CSFV vaccination (223). Therefore, secretion of IL-10 by Tregs may act as an indicator of vaccine failure for ASFV and PRRSV. This relationship has not been observed or well characterized following vaccination against FMDV, CSFV, BTV, or LSDV. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of Tregs in protective immunity for disease discussed in this review.

7 Discussion

Substantial progress has been made in identifying protective immune features to various vaccine formulations for the high-consequence viral livestock diseases addressed in this review. Nabs are an established CoP for many of these viruses, and a wealth of research has also implicated Type I IFNs and CMI in early vaccine-mediated protection and protection against heterotypic strains of these viruses (i.e., cross-protection) (Table 1). However, direct analysis of the correlation to the level of protection for many of these immune features has not been fully established (Table 1). Furthermore, the quantitative level of protection for most immune features—except for protective Nab titers against CSFV, FMDV, and PRRSV (Table 1)—is not established. The role of an immune feature in protection can be cemented by performing vaccine dose escalation studies in the natural host and correlating level of protection with the immune feature (Figure 1). Furthermore, research into the protective role of antibody Fc effector functions, antigen-specific T-cell responses, and cytokine responses to new and existing vaccines is limited. CoP studies in the context of high-priority livestock viral diseases is restricted by reagent availability, lack of protective animal models, and limits to the scale; such experiments can typically be performed due to the practical constraints of large animal studies, compared to human vaccine clinical trials or mice pre-clinical vaccine work. While these limitations are a hurdle for livestock vaccine development, inspiration can be derived from human immune assay development and assessment of vaccine CoPs. Such lessons can be drawn from SARS-CoV-2 research (203, 224–230).

Identification of CoPs has three key applications within a biosecurity system, and these are discussed below. Firstly, identified CoPs can be used to guide the rationale for vaccine development (Figure 1F). This can be observed in the abundance of vaccine candidates being developed to generate CMI using DNA or viral vector vaccines against the viruses discussed in this review (122) (Table 1). Furthermore, because of high levels of antigenic diversity of strains/genotypes for these high-priority livestock diseases, vaccines are being designed to induce CMI to more conserved proteins to improve cross-protection (87, 231, 232). CoPs in combination with international vaccine standards, which set the minimum requirements for a vaccine, and DIVA capacity should be considered from the beginning of the vaccine development pipeline (233). Secondly, identification of CoPs facilitates selection of an appropriate immune feature to measure for immune surveillance. For example, Nab titers are easy to quantify and protective thresholds can be defined for vaccines that have established Nab titers as a CoP. Nab titers ≥50 following CSFV vaccination in pigs are sufficient to stop virus transmission from wild-type virus challenge, while titers <32 are inadequate to prevent transmission and clinical signs (110). Immune surveillance can be performed to determine the immune status of animals to be transported or exported during an outbreak, identify vaccine failures, and identify at-risk animals that need to be vaccinated (Figure 1F). Immune surveillance can be paired with assays to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals to further ensure biosecurity is maintained during trade with regions free of the virus. Finally, a general understanding of the CoP and the level of protection can inform the implementation of a vaccine program (Figure 1). For example, the Nab titer of current FMDV vaccines is a reliable indicator of protection against matched strains; however, the correlation between FMDV Nab titers and protection is less predictive of protection to non-matched or heterologous strains (62, 234), thus highlighting the importance of correctly matching the vaccine strain to circulating strains for effective vaccination. This is especially important to consider in regions where multiple virus genotypes or serotypes are circulating (235, 236).

7.1 Conclusion

With the emergence, re-emergence, and global movement of high-priority viral diseases of mammalian livestock, understanding CoPs and their applications to biosecurity programs is critical. Identification of CoPs can provide an evidence-based scientific framework to guide next-generation vaccine development and immune surveillance and maintain biosecurity in the livestock industry. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of CoPs can facilitate the identification of sub-optimal vaccines or vaccine failures, thus ensuring resilience of livestock populations, promoting global trade, protecting public health, and contributing to sustainable agricultural practices. However, for many important livestock viral diseases, an in-depth understanding of CoPs is lacking, making it difficult to develop improved next-generation vaccines and implement effective vaccination programs for biosecurity. Livestock research needs to take a holistic and comprehensive approach to identifying CoPs using current and novel technologies to drive vaccine development for successful implementation of vaccines in biosecurity strategies.

References

• 1

  BurnetteRN. Redefining Biosecurity by Application in Global Health, Biodefense, and Developing Technologies. In: Applied Biosecurity: Global Health, Biodefense, and Developing Technologies, vol. 24. Springer Nature Switzerland: Springer (2021). p. 1–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  PengHBilalMIqbalHM. Improved biosafety and biosecurity measures and/or strategies to tackle laboratory-acquired infections and related risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2697. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122697

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  StokstadMKlemTBMyrmelMOmaVSToftakerIØsteråsOet al. Using biosecurity measures to combat respiratory disease in cattle: The Norwegian control program for bovine respiratory syncytial virus and bovine coronavirus. Front Veterinary Sci. (2020) 7:167. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00167

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  YoussefDMWielandBKnightGMLinesJNaylorNR. The effectiveness of biosecurity interventions in reducing the transmission of bacteria from livestock to humans at the farm level: a systematic literature review. Zoonoses Public Health. (2021) 68:549–62. doi: 10.1111/zph.12807

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  TuppurainenEDietzeKWolffJBergmannHBeltran-AlcrudoDFahrionAet al. Vaccines and vaccination against lumpy skin disease. Vaccines. (2021) 9:1136. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9101136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  HaegemanADe LeeuwIMostinLCampeWVAertsLVenterEet al. Comparative evaluation of lumpy skin disease virus-based live attenuated vaccines. Vaccines. (2021) 9:473. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050473

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  GariGAbieGGizawDWubeteAKidaneMAsgedomHet al. Evaluation of the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of three capripoxvirus vaccine strains against lumpy skin disease virus. Vaccine. (2015) 33:3256–61. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  VarshoviHRNorianRAzadmehrAAfzal AhangaranN. Immune response characteristics of Capri pox virus vaccines following emergency vaccination of cattle against lumpy skin disease virus. Iranian J Veterinary Sci Technol. (2017) 9:33–40. doi: 10.22067/VETERINARY.V9I2.65381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  SuwankitwatNBhakhaKMoleeLSongkasupaTPuangjindaKChamchoyTet al. Long-term monitoring of immune response to recombinant lumpy skin disease virus in dairy cattle from small-household farms in western Thailand. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Diseases. (2023) 99:102008. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2023.102008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  MilovanovićMDietzeKMilićevićVRadojičićSValčićMMoritzTet al. Humoral immune response to repeated lumpy skin disease virus vaccination and performance of serological tests. BMC veterinary Res. (2019) 15:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-1831-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  FayPCWijesiriwardanaNMunyandukiHSanz-BernardoBLewisIHagaIRet al. The immune response to lumpy skin disease virus in cattle is influenced by inoculation route. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:6947. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1051008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  McVeyDSMacLachlanNJ. Vaccines for prevention of bluetongue and epizootic hemorrhagic disease in livestock: A North American perspective. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Diseases. (2015) 15:385–96. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2014.1698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BitewMRavishankarCChakravartiSKumar SharmaGNandiS. Comparative evaluation of T-cell immune response to BTV infection in sheep vaccinated with pentavalent btv vaccine when compared to un-vaccinated animals. Veterinary Med Int. (2019) 2019:8762780. doi: 10.1155/2019/8762780

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  UmeshappaCSSinghKPPandeyABSinghRPNanjundappaRH. Cell-mediated immune response and cross-protective efficacy of binary ethylenimine-inactivated bluetongue virus serotype-1 vaccine in sheep. Vaccine. (2010) 28:2522–31. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.01.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  OuraCWoodJSandersABin-TarifHenstockMEdwardsLet al. Seroconversion, neutralising antibodies and protection in bluetongue serotype 8 vaccinated sheep. Vaccine. (2009) 27:7326–30. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.09.070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BreardEBelbisGViarougeCNomikouKHaegemanADe ClercqKet al. Evaluation of adaptive immune responses and heterologous protection induced by inactivated bluetongue virus vaccines. Vaccine. (2015) 33:512–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Van RijnPA. Prospects of next-generation vaccines for bluetongue. Front Veterinary Sci. (2019) 6:407. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  ErasmusB. Virus infections of ruminants. Amsterdam: Bluetongue Virus: Elsevier Ltd (1990) p. 227–37.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DunguBGerdesTSmitT. The use of vaccination in the control of bluetongue in southern Africa. Vet Ital. (2004) 40:616–22.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  ZhugunissovKYershebulovZBarakbayevKBulatovYTaranovDAmanovaZet al. Duration of protective immunity after a single vaccination with a live attenuated bivalent bluetongue vaccine. Veterinary Res Commun. (2015) 39:203–10. doi: 10.1007/s11259-015-9643-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  van GennipRGvan de WaterSGMaris-VeldhuisMvan RijnPA. Bluetongue viruses based on modified-live vaccine serotype 6 with exchanged outer shell proteins confer full protection in sheep against virulent BTV8. PLoS One. (2012) 7(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044619

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  SaviniGMonacoFCalistriPPanichiGRuiuALeoneAet al. Neutralising antibody response in cattle after vaccination with monovalent modified-live vaccine against bluetongue virus serotype 2. Vet Ital. (2004) 40:668–70.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Calvo-PinillaERodríguez-CalvoTSevillaNOrtegoJ. Heterologous prime boost vaccination with DNA and recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara protects IFNAR (–/–) mice against lethal bluetongue infection. Vaccine. (2009) 28:437–45. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Wade-EvansARomeroCMellorPTakamatsuHAndersonJThevasagayamJet al. Expression of the major core structural protein (VP7) of bluetongue virus, by a recombinant capripox virus, provides partial protection of sheep against a virulent heterotypic bluetongue virus challenge. Virology. (1996) 220:227–31. doi: 10.1006/viro.1996.0306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  PerrinAAlbinaEBreardESailleauCProméSGrilletCet al. Recombinant capripoxviruses expressing proteins of bluetongue virus: evaluation of immune responses and protection in small ruminants. Vaccine. (2007) 25:6774–83. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.06.052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  LobatoZIPCouparBEHGrayCPLuntRAndrewME. Antibody responses and protective immunity to recombinant vaccinia virus-expressed bluetongue virus antigens. Veterinary Immunol Immunopathol. (1997) 59:293–309. doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(97)00084-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  LetchworthGJAppletonJA. Passive protection of mice and sheep against bluetongue virus by a neutralizing monoclonal antibody. Infection Immunity. (1983) 39:208–12. doi: 10.1128/iai.39.1.208-212.1983

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  JeggoMWardleyRTaylorW. Role of neutralising antibody in passive immunity to bluetongue infection. Res veterinary sci. (1984) 36:81–6. doi: 10.1016/S0034-5288(18)32007-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  JeggoMWardleyRBrownlieJ. Importance of ovine cytotoxic T cells in protection against bluetongue virus infection. Prog Clin Biol Res. (1985) 178:477–87.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HardyABakshiSFurnonWMacLeanOGuQVarjakMet al. The timing and magnitude of the type I interferon response are correlated with disease tolerance in arbovirus infection. mBio. (2023) 14:e00101–23. doi: 10.1128/mbio.00101-23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  NewbrookKKhanNFisherAChongKGubbinsSDaviesWCet al. Specific T-cell subsets have a role in anti-viral immunity and pathogenesis but not viral dynamics or onwards vector transmission of an important livestock arbovirus. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1328820. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1328820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DingYWubshetAKDingXZhangZLiQDaiJet al. Evaluation of four commercial vaccines for the protection of piglets against the highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (hp-PRRSV) QH-08 strain. Vaccines. (2021) 9:1020. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9091020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  PapatsirosVAlexopoulosCKritasSKoptopoulosGNauwynckHPensaertMet al. Long-term administration of a commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-inactivated vaccine in PRRSV-endemically infected sows. J Veterinary Med Ser B. (2006) 53:266–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0450.2006.00965.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GeldhofMFVanheeMVan BreedamWVan DoorsselaereJKarniychukUUNauwynckHJ. Comparison of the efficacy of autogenous inactivated Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) vaccines with that of commercial vaccines against homologous and heterologous challenges. BMC veterinary Res. (2012) 8:1–16. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CaoQMNiY-YCaoDTianDYugoDMHeffronCLet al. Recombinant porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus expressing membrane-bound interleukin-15 as an immunomodulatory adjuvant enhances NK and γδ T cell responses and confers heterologous protection. J Virol. (2018) 92:e00007-18. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00007-18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ZuckermannFAGarciaEALuqueIDChristopher-HenningsJDosterABritoMet al. Assessment of the efficacy of commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccines based on measurement of serologic response, frequency of gamma-IFN-producing cells and virological parameters of protection upon challenge. Veterinary Microbiol. (2007) 123:69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  LawsonSLunneyJZuckermannFOsorioFNelsonEWelbonCet al. Development of an 8-plex Luminex assay to detect swine cytokines for vaccine development: assessment of immunity after porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccination. Vaccine. (2010) 28:5356–64. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.05.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  VremanSStockhofe-ZurwiedenNPopma-de GraafDJSavelkoulHFBarnier-QuerCCollinNet al. Immune responses induced by inactivated porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccine in neonatal pigs using different adjuvants. Veterinary Immunol Immunopathol. (2021) 232:110170. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2020.110170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MisinzoGDelputtePLMeertsPDrexlerCNauwynckHJ eds. Efficacy of an inactivated PRRSV vaccine: induction of virus-neutralizing antibodies and partial virological protection upon challenge. In: The Nidoviruses: Toward Control of SARS and other Nidovirus Diseases. Boston, MA: Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  GeldhofMFVan BreedamWDe JongERodriguezALKarniychukUUVanheeMet al. Antibody response and maternal immunity upon boosting PRRSV-immune sows with experimental farm-specific and commercial PRRSV vaccines. Veterinary Microbiol. (2013) 167:260–71. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.08.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  VanheeMDelputtePLDelrueIGeldhofMFNauwynckHJ. Development of an experimental inactivated PRRSV vaccine that induces virus-neutralizing antibodies. Veterinary Res. (2009) 40:63. doi: 10.1051/vetres/2009046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  PirasFBollardSLavalFJoiselFReynaudGCharreyreCet al. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) virus-specific interferon-γ+ T-cell responses after PRRS virus infection or vaccination with an inactivated PRRS vaccine. Viral Immunol. (2005) 18:381–9. doi: 10.1089/vim.2005.18.381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ChaeC. Commercial PRRS modified-live virus vaccines. Vaccines. (2021) 9:185. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MartelliPGozioSFerrariLRosinaSDe AngelisEQuintavallaCet al. Efficacy of a modified live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccine in pigs naturally exposed to a heterologous European (Italian cluster) field strain: Clinical protection and cell-mediated immunity. Vaccine. (2009) 27:3788–99. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  DiazIDarwichLPappaterraGPujolsJMateuE. Different European-type vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus have different immunological properties and confer different protection to pigs. Virology. (2006) 351:249–59. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2006.03.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  JeongJKangIKimSParkSJParkKOhTet al. A modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-1 vaccine protects late-term pregnancy gilts against heterologous PRRSV-1 but not PRRSV-2 challenge. Transboundary emerging diseases. (2018) 65:1227–34. doi: 10.1111/tbed.2018.65.issue-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  LiYDíazIMartín-VallsGBeyersdorfNMateuE. Systemic CD4 cytotoxic T cells improve protection against PRRSV-1 transplacental infection. Front Immunol. (2023) 13:1020227. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1020227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  WangGYuYZhangCTuYTongJLiuYet al. Immune responses to modified live virus vaccines developed from classical or highly pathogenic PRRSV following challenge with a highly pathogenic PRRSV strain. Dev Comp Immunol. (2016) 62:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2016.04.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ParkCSeoHWHanKKangIChaeC. Evaluation of the efficacy of a new modified live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccine (Fostera PRRS) against heterologous PRRSV challenge. Veterinary Microbiol. (2014) 172:432–42. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.05.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MadapongASaeng-ChutoKBoonsoongnernATantituvanontANilubolD. Cell-mediated immune response and protective efficacy of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus modified-live vaccines against co-challenge with PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:1649. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58626-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  OhTKimHParkKHJeongJKangIYangSet al. Effectiveness of a commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) subunit vaccine against heterologous PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 challenge in late-term pregnant gilts. Can J Veterinary Res. (2019) 83:248–54.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  TianDSubramaniamSHeffronCLMahsoubHMSooryanarainHWangBet al. Construction and efficacy evaluation of novel swine leukocyte antigen (SLA) class I and class II allele-specific poly-T cell epitope vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. J Gen Virol. (2020) 101:1191–201. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DTDUYKimHJeongJParkKHYangSOhTet al. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of commercial and prototype PRRS subunit vaccines against an HP-PRRSV challenge. J Veterinary Med Sci. (2018) 80:1463–7. doi: 10.1292/jvms.17-0583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  LopezOJOliveiraMFGarciaEAKwonBJDosterAOsorioFA. Protection against Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) Infection through Passive Transfer of PRRSV-Neutralizing Antibodies Is Dose Dependent. Clin Vaccine Immunol. (2007) 14:269–75. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00304-06

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  RobinsonSRRaheMCGrayDKMartinsKVMurtaughMP. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus neutralizing antibodies provide in vivo cross-protection to PRRSV1 and PRRSV2 viral challenge. Virus Res. (2018) 248:13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2018.01.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  KamelMEl-SayedACastañeda VazquezH. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccines: recent updates and future perspectives. Arch virol. (2019) 164:1501–13. doi: 10.1007/s00705-019-04216-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  ElnekaveELiYZamirLEven-TovBHamblinPGelmanBet al. The field effectiveness of routine and emergency vaccination with an inactivated vaccine against foot and mouth disease. Vaccine. (2013) 31:879–85. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  OhYFlemingLStathamBHamblinPBarnettPPatonDJet al. Interferon-γ induced by in vitro re-stimulation of CD4+ T-cells correlates with in vivo FMD vaccine induced protection of cattle against disease and persistent infection. PLoS One. (2012) 7(9):. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044365

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  BarnardALArriensACoxSBarnettPKristensenBSummerfieldAet al. Immune response characteristics following emergency vaccination of pigs against foot-and-mouth disease. Vaccine. (2005) 23:1037–47. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.07.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  MingalaCNKonnaiSVenturinaFAOnumaMOhashiK. Quantification of water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) cytokine expression in response to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine. Res veterinary sci. (2009) 87:213–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2009.02.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MuSChenLDongHLiSZhangYYinSet al. Enhanced antigen-specific CD8 T cells contribute to early protection against FMDV through swine DC vaccination. J Virol. (2024) 98:e02002–23. doi: 10.1128/jvi.02002-23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  GubbinsSPatonDJDekkerALudiABWilsdenGBrowningCFJet al. Predicting cross-protection against foot-and-mouth disease virus strains by serology after vaccination. Front Veterinary Sci. (2022) 9. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1027006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  RiederEBaxtBLubrothJMasonPW. Vaccines prepared from chimeras of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) induce neutralizing antibodies and protective immunity to multiple serotypes of FMDV. J virol. (1994) 68:7092–8. doi: 10.1128/jvi.68.11.7092-7098.1994

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  PayTHingleyP. Foot and mouth disease vaccine potency test in cattle: the interrelationship of antigen dose, serum neutralizing antibody response and protection from challenge. Vaccine. (1992) 10:699–706. doi: 10.1016/0264-410X(92)90092-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  SummerfieldAGerberHSchmittRLinigerMGrazioliSBrocchiE. Relationship between neutralizing and opsonizing monoclonal antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus. Front Veterinary Sci. (2022) 9:1033276. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1033276

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  NaessensJScheerlinckJ-PDe BuysscherEVKennedyDSileghemM. Effective in vivo depletion of T cell subpopulations and loss of memory cells in cattle using mouse monoclonal antibodies. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (1998) 64:219–34. doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(98)00138-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  GuzmanETaylorGCharlestonBSkinnerMAEllisSA. An MHC-restricted CD8+ T-cell response is induced in cattle by foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) infection and also following vaccination with inactivated FMDV. J Gen Virol. (2008) 89:667–75. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.83417-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ZhangZWangDYaoYYangJYangZYangY. Characterization of T-cell subsets in response to foot-and-mouth disease bivalent inactivated vaccine in Chinese Holstein cows. Microbiol Spectrum. (2023) 11:e01029–23. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01029-23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  HardhamJMKrugPPachecoJMThompsonJDominowskiPMoulinVet al. Novel foot-and-mouth disease vaccine platform: formulations for safe and DIVA-compatible FMD vaccines with improved potency. Front Veterinary Sci. (2020) 7. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.554305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GrubmanMJDiaz-San SegundoFDiasCCAMoraesMPPerez-MartinEDe Los SantosT. Use of replication-defective adenoviruses to develop vaccines and biotherapeutics against foot-and-mouth disease. Future Virol. (2012) 7:767–78. doi: 10.2217/fvl.12.65

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  ChinsangaramJMoraesMPKosterMGrubmanMJ. Novel viral disease control strategy: adenovirus expressing alpha interferon rapidly protects swine from foot-and-mouth disease. J virol. (2003) 77:1621–5. doi: 10.1128/JVI.77.2.1621-1625.2003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  DiasCCMoraesMPSegundoFD-SDe los SantosTGrubmanMJ. Porcine type I interferon rapidly protects swine against challenge with multiple serotypes of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J Interferon Cytokine Res. (2011) 31:227–36. doi: 10.1089/jir.2010.0055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Diaz-San SegundoFMoraesMPde Los SantosTDiasCCGrubmanMJ. Interferon-induced protection against foot-and-mouth disease virus infection correlates with enhanced tissue-specific innate immune cell infiltration and interferon-stimulated gene expression. J virol. (2010) 84:2063–77. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01874-09

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  RomanuttiCD’AntuonoAPalaciosCQuattrocchiVZamoranoPLa TorreJet al. Evaluation of the immune response elicited by vaccination with viral vectors encoding FMDV capsid proteins and boosted with inactivated virus. Veterinary Microbiol. (2013) 165:333–40. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.04.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  PachecoJMBrumMCMoraesMPGoldeWTGrubmanMJ. Rapid protection of cattle from direct challenge with foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) by a single inoculation with an adenovirus-vectored FMDV subunit vaccine. Virology. (2005) 337:205–9. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2005.04.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  BarreraJBrakeDASchuttaCEttyreddyDKamickerBJRasmussenMVet al. Versatility of the adenovirus-vectored foot-and-mouth disease vaccine platform across multiple foot-and-mouth disease virus serotypes and topotypes using a vaccine dose representative of the AdtA24 conditionally licensed vaccine. Vaccine. (2018) 36:7345–52. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  MoraesMMayrGMasonPGrubmanM. Early protection against homologous challenge after a single dose of replication-defective human adenovirus type 5 expressing capsid proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) strain A24. Vaccine. (2002) 20:1631–9. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00483-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  SuCDuanXZhengJLiangLWangFGuoL. IFN-α as an adjuvant for adenovirus-vectored FMDV subunit vaccine through improving the generation of T follicular helper cells. PloS One. (2013) 8:e66134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  MoraesMPDiaz-San SegundoFDiasCCPenaLGrubmanMJ. Increased efficacy of an adenovirus-vectored foot-and-mouth disease capsid subunit vaccine expressing nonstructural protein 2B is associated with a specific T cell response. Vaccine. (2011) 29:9431–40. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  JinHXiaoWXiaoCYuYKangYDuXet al. Protective immune responses against foot-and-mouth disease virus by vaccination with a DNA vaccine expressing virus-like particles. Viral Immunol. (2007) 20:429–40. doi: 10.1089/vim.2007.0031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  BarrionuevoFDi GiacomoSBucafuscoDAyudeASchammasJMiragliaMCet al. Systemic antibodies administered by passive immunization prevent generalization of the infection by foot-and-mouth disease virus in cattle after oronasal challenge. Virology. (2018) 518:143–51. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2018.02.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  McCulloughKParkinsonDCrowtherJ. Opsonization-enhanced phagocytosis of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Immunology. (1988) 65:187.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  McCulloughKCrowtherJButcherRCarpenterWBrocchiECapucciLet al. Immune protection against foot-and-mouth disease virus studied using virus-neutralizing and non-neutralizing concentrations of monoclonal antibodies. Immunology. (1986) 58:421.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  BorcaMVRamirez-MedinaESilvaEVuonoERaiAPruittSet al. Development of a highly effective African swine fever virus vaccine by deletion of the I177L gene results in sterile immunity against the current epidemic Eurasia strain. J Virol. (2020) 94:e02017-19. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02017-19

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  O'DonnellVHolinkaLGGladueDPSanfordBKrugPWLuXet al. African swine fever virus Georgia isolate harboring deletions of MGF360 and MGF505 genes is attenuated in swine and confers protection against challenge with virulent parental virus. J virol. (2015) 89:6048–56. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00554-15

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  DeutschmannPCarrauTSehl-EwertJForthJHViaplanaEManceraJCet al. Taking a promising vaccine candidate further: efficacy of ASFV-G-ΔMGF after intramuscular vaccination of domestic pigs and Oral vaccination of wild boar. Pathogens. (2022) 11:996. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11090996

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Bosch-CamósLAlonsoUEsteve-CodinaAChangC-YMartín-MurBAccensiFet al. Cross-protection against African swine fever virus upon intranasal vaccination is associated with an adaptive-innate immune crosstalk. PloS Pathogens. (2022) 18:e1010931. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010931

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  CarlsonJO’DonnellVAlfanoMVelazquez SalinasLHolinkaLGKrugPWet al. Association of the host immune response with protection using a live attenuated African swine fever virus model. Viruses. (2016) 8:291. doi: 10.3390/v8100291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  AttreedSESilvaCAbbottSRamirez-MedinaEEspinozaNBorcaMVet al. A highly effective African swine fever virus vaccine elicits a memory T cell response in vaccinated swine. Pathogens. (2022) 11:1438. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11121438

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  LeitãoACartaxeiroCCoelhoRCruzBParkhouseRPortugalFCet al. The non-haemadsorbing African swine fever virus isolate ASFV/NH/P68 provides a model for defining the protective anti-virus immune response. J Gen Virol. (2001) 82:513–23. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-82-3-513

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  SilvaEBKrugPWRamirez-MedinaEValladaresARaiAEspinozaNet al. The Presence of Virus Neutralizing Antibodies Is Highly Associated with Protection against Virulent Challenge in Domestic Pigs Immunized with ASFV live Attenuated Vaccine Candidates. Pathogens. (2022) 11:1311. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11111311

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  OuraCADenyerMTakamatsuHParkhouseR. In vivo depletion of CD8+ T lymphocytes abrogates protective immunity to African swine fever virus. J Gen Virol. (2005) 86:2445–50. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81038-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  DenyerMSWilemanTEStirlingCMZuberBTakamatsuH-H. Perforin expression can define CD8 positive lymphocyte subsets in pigs allowing phenotypic and functional analysis of natural killer, cytotoxic T, natural killer T and MHC un-restricted cytotoxic T-cells. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2006) 110:279–92. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2005.10.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  PedreraMSolerASimónACasadoNPérezCGarcía-CasadoMAet al. Characterization of the protective cellular immune response in pigs immunized intradermally with the live attenuated African swine fever virus (ASFV) lv17/WB/rie1. Vaccines. (2024) 12:443. doi: 10.3390/vaccines12040443

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  Gómez-PuertasPRodríguezFOviedoJMBrunAAlonsoCEscribanoJM. The African swine fever virus proteins p54 and p30 are involved in two distinct steps of virus attachment and both contribute to the antibody-mediated protective immune response. Virology. (1998) 243:461–71. doi: 10.1006/viro.1998.9068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ArgilaguetJMPérez-MartínENofraríasMGallardoCAccensiFLacastaAet al. DNA vaccination partially protects against African swine fever virus lethal challenge in the absence of antibodies. PLoS One. (2012) 7(9):. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  ZajacMDSangewarNLokhandwalaSBrayJSangHMcCallJet al. Adenovirus-vectored African swine fever virus pp220 induces robust antibody, IFN-γ, and CTL responses in pigs. Front Veterinary Sci. (2022) 9:921481. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.921481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  LiuWLiHLiuBLvTYangCChenSet al. A new vaccination regimen using adenovirus-vectored vaccine confers effective protection against African swine fever virus in swine. Emerging Microbes Infections. (2023) 12:2233643. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2023.2233643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  NollJCGRaniRButtSLFernandesMHVdo NascimentoGMMartinsMet al. Identification of an Immunodominant B-Cell Epitope in African Swine Fever Virus p30 Protein and Evidence of p30 Antibody-Mediated Antibody Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity. Viruses. (2024) 16:758. doi: 10.3390/v16050758

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  ZajacMDTrujilloJDYaoJKumarRSangewarNLokhandwalaSet al. Immunization of pigs with replication-incompetent adenovirus-vectored African swine fever virus multi-antigens induced humoral immune responses but no protection following contact challenge. Front Veterinary Sci. (2023) 10:1208275. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1208275

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  PikaloJPorfiriLAkimkinVRoszykHPannhorstKKangetheRTet al. Vaccination with a gamma irradiation-inactivated African swine fever virus is safe but does not protect against a challenge. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:832264. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.832264

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Cadenas-FernándezESánchez-VizcaínoJMvan Den BornEKosowskaAvan KilsdonkEFernández-PachecoPet al. High doses of inactivated African swine fever virus are safe, but do not confer protection against a virulent challenge. Vaccines. (2021) 9:242. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9030242

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  BlomeSGabrielCBeerM. Modern adjuvants do not enhance the efficacy of an inactivated African swine fever virus vaccine preparation. Vaccine. (2014) 32:3879–82. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.05.051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  WardleyRNorleySWilkinsonPWilliamsS. The role of antibody in protection against African swine fever virus. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (1985) 9:201–12. doi: 10.1016/0165-2427(85)90071-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  NorleySWardleyR. Effector mechanisms in the pig. Antibody-dependent cellular cytolysis of African swine fever virus infected cells. Res veterinary sci. (1983) 35:75–9. doi: 10.1016/S0034-5288(18)32207-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  OniskDBorcaMKutishSKramerEIrustaPRockD. Passively transferred African swine fever virus antibodies protect swine against lethal infection. Virology. (1994) 198:350–4. doi: 10.1006/viro.1994.1040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LiFLiBNiuXChenWLiYWuKet al. The development of classical swine fever marker vaccines in recent years. Vaccines. (2022) 10:603. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10040603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  LuoYJiSLeiJ-LXiangG-TLiuYGaoYet al. Efficacy evaluation of the C-strain-based vaccines against the subgenotype 2.1 d classical swine fever virus emerging in China. Veterinary Microbiol. (2017) 201:154–61. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.01.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  SuradhatSIntrakamhaengMDamrongwatanapokinS. The correlation of virus-specific interferon-gamma production and protection against classical swine fever virus infection. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2001) 83:177–89. doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(01)00389-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  TerpstraCWensvoortG. The protective value of vaccine-induced neutralising antibody titres in swine fever. Veterinary Microbiol. (1988) 16:123–8. doi: 10.1016/0378-1135(88)90036-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  De SmitABoumaAVan GennipHDe KluijverEMoormannR. Chimeric (marker) C-strain viruses induce clinical protection against virulent classical swine fever virus (CSFV) and reduce transmission of CSFV between vaccinated pigs. Vaccine. (2001) 19:1467–76. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(00)00347-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  FranzoniGKurkureNVEdgarDSEverettHEGernerWBodman-SmithKBet al. Assessment of the phenotype and functionality of porcine CD8 T cell responses following vaccination with live attenuated classical swine fever virus (CSFV) and virulent CSFV challenge. Clin Vaccine Immunol. (2013) 20:1604–16. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00415-13

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  GangesLBarreraMNúñezJIBlancoIFriasMTRodríguezFet al. A DNA vaccine expressing the E2 protein of classical swine fever virus elicits T cell responses that can prime for rapid antibody production and confer total protection upon viral challenge. Vaccine. (2005) 23:3741–52. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.01.153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  GrahamSPHainesFJJohnsHLSosanOLa RoccaSALampBet al. Characterisation of vaccine-induced, broadly cross-reactive IFN-γ secreting T cell responses that correlate with rapid protection against classical swine fever virus. Vaccine. (2012) 30:2742–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  GongWLiJWangZSunJMiSXuJet al. Commercial E2 subunit vaccine provides full protection to pigs against lethal challenge with 4 strains of classical swine fever virus genotype 2. Veterinary Microbiol. (2019) 237:108403. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  ToledoJRBarreraMFarnósOGómezSRodríguezMPAgueroFet al. Human αIFN co-formulated with milk derived E2-CSFV protein induce early full protection in vaccinated pigs. Vaccine. (2010) 28:7907–14. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.09.073

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ZhangHWenWZhaoZWangJChenHQianPet al. Enhanced protective immunity to CSFV E2 subunit vaccine by using IFN-γ as immunoadjuvant in weaning piglets. Vaccine. (2018) 36:7353–60. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  RensonPLe DimnaMGabrielCLevaiRBlomeSKulcsarGet al. Cytokine and immunoglobulin isotype profiles during CP7_E2alf vaccination against a challenge with the highly virulent Koslov strain of classical swine fever virus. Res Veterinary Sci. (2014) 96:389–95. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  SongHAbdullahSWPeiCShiXChenXMaYet al. Self-assembling E2-based nanoparticles improve vaccine thermostability and protective immunity against CSFV. Int J Mol Sci. (2024) 25:596. doi: 10.3390/ijms25010596

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  XuHHanGLuYLiuZTaoLHeF. Broad neutralization of CSFV with novel monoclonal antibodies in vivo. Int J Biol Macromolecules. (2021) 173:513–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.01.142

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  SiegristC-ALambertP-H. How vaccines work. In: The vaccine book, 2nd ed.London, United Kingdom: Elsevier (2016). p. 33–42.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  UraTTakeuchiMKawagoeTMizukiNOkudaKShimadaM. Current vaccine platforms in enhancing T-cell response. Vaccines. (2022) 10:1367. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10081367

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  GhattasMDwivediGLavertuMAlamehM-G. Vaccine technologies and platforms for infectious diseases: Current progress, challenges, and opportunities. Vaccines. (2021) 9:1490. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9121490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  RothJA. Veterinary vaccines and their importance to animal health and public health. Proc Vaccinol. (2011) 5:127–36. doi: 10.1016/j.provac.2011.10.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  WilliamsR. The use of vaccination in emergency animal disease responses. Veterinaria Italiana. (2007) 43:225–35.

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MorensDMHolmesECDavisASTaubenbergerJK. Global rinderpest eradication: lessons learned and why humans should celebrate too. J Infect Diseases. (2011) 204:502–5. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jir327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  UgarteR. Strategy for the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Uruguay. Developments biologicals. (2004) 119:415–21.

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  BrücknerGVoslooWCloeteMDunguBDu PlessisB. Foot-and-mouth disease control using vaccination: South African experience. Developments biologicals. (2004) 119:51–62.

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  TranXHLeTTPNguyenQHDoTTNguyenVDGayCGet al. African swine fever virus vaccine candidate ASFV-G-ΔI177L efficiently protects European and native pig breeds against circulating Vietnamese field strain. Transboundary Emerging Diseases. (2022) 69:e497–504. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  AusVetPlan. Response strategy African swine fever Animal Health Australia Website2024 . Available online at: https://animalhealthAustralia.com.au//wp-content/uploads/2023/05/AUSVETPLAN-Response-strategy-African-swine-fever.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  PlotkinSAPlotkinSA. Correlates of vaccine-induced immunity. Clin Infect Diseases. (2008) 47:401–9. doi: 10.1086/589862

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  WahlIWardemannH. Sterilizing immunity: understanding COVID-19. Immunity. (2022) 55:2231–5. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.10.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  ZimmermannPCurtisN. Factors that influence the immune response to vaccination. Clin Microbiol Rev. (2019) 32:e00084-18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00084-18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  HedegaardCJHeegaardPM. Passive immunisation, an old idea revisited: Basic principles and application to modern animal production systems. Veterinary Immunol Immunopathol. (2016) 174:50–63. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2016.04.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  McCollKGouldA. Bluetongue virus infection in sheep: haematological changes and detection by polymerase chain reaction. Aust veterinary J. (1994) 71:97–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb03346.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  BautistaEMFermanGSGoldeWT. Induction of lymphopenia and inhibition of T cell function during acute infection of swine with foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV). Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2003) 92:61–73. doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(03)00004-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MaS-mMaoQYiLZhaoM-qChenJ-d. Apoptosis, autophagy, and pyroptosis: immune escape strategies for persistent infection and pathogenesis of classical swine fever virus. Pathogens. (2019) 8:239. doi: 10.3390/pathogens8040239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  ShilpaDAHalmandgeSKasaralikarVRRavindraBBhagavantappaBMallinathKet al. Study on clinical, haemato-biochemical changes in lumpy skin disease affected cattle in Bidar. Pharma Innovation J. (2022) 11:2170–80.

  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Sanz-ParraASobrinoFLeyV. Infection with foot-and-mouth disease virus results in a rapid reduction of MHC class I surface expression. J Gen virol. (1998) 79:433–6. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-79-3-433

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  ZhuJJRamanathanPBishopEAO’DonnellVGladueDPBorcaMV. Mechanisms of African swine fever virus pathogenesis and immune evasion inferred from gene expression changes in infected swine macrophages. PloS One. (2019) 14:e0223955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223955

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  WangXEatonMMayerMLiHHeDNelsonEet al. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus productively infects monocyte-derived dendritic cells and compromises their antigen-presenting ability. Arch virol. (2007) 152:289–303. doi: 10.1007/s00705-006-0857-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  AvagyanHHakobyanSBaghdasaryanBArzumanyanHPoghosyanABayramyanNet al. Pathology and clinics of naturally occurring low-virulence variants of African swine fever emerged in domestic pigs in the South caucasus. Pathogens. (2024) 13:130. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13020130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  KrijgsmanDHoklandMKuppenPJ. The role of natural killer T cells in cancer—a phenotypical and functional approach. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:367. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00367

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  PatchJRDarPAWatersRTokaFNBarreraJSchuttaCet al. Infection with foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) induces a natural killer (NK) cell response in cattle that is lacking following vaccination. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Diseases. (2014) 37:249–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2014.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  TokaFNNfonCKDawsonHEstesDMGoldeWT. Activation of porcine natural killer cells and lysis of foot-and-mouth disease virus infected cells. J Interferon Cytokine Res. (2009) 29:179–92. doi: 10.1089/jir.2008.0058

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  Gómez-LagunaJSalgueroFJPallarésFJCarrascoL. Immunopathogenesis of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in the respiratory tract of pigs. Veterinary J. (2013) 195:148–55. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  AyanwaleATrappSGuabirabaRCaballeroIRoeschF. New insights in the interplay between African swine fever virus and innate immunity and its impact on viral pathogenicity. Front Microbiol. (2022) 13:958307. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.958307

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  GorayaMUZiaghumFChenSRazaAChenYChiX. Role of innate immunity in pathophysiology of classical swine fever virus infection. Microbial pathogenesis. (2018) 119:248–54. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.04.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  NfonCKFermanGSTokaFNGreggDAGoldeWT. Interferon-α production by swine dendritic cells is inhibited during acute infection with foot-and-mouth disease virus. Viral Immunol. (2008) 21:68–77. doi: 10.1089/vim.2007.0097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  NfonCKTokaFNKenneyMPachecoJMGoldeWT. Loss of plasmacytoid dendritic cell function coincides with lymphopenia and viremia during foot-and-mouth disease virus infection. Viral Immunol. (2010) 23:29–41. doi: 10.1089/vim.2009.0078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  LiangZWangSYaoKRenSChengPQuMet al. Lumpy skin disease virus ORF127 protein suppresses type I interferon responses by inhibiting K63-linked ubiquitination of tank binding kinase 1. FASEB J. (2024) 38:e23467. doi: 10.1096/fj.202301987RR

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  Rodríguez-CalvoTRojasJ-MMartínVSevillaN. Type I interferon limits the capacity of bluetongue virus to infect hematopoietic precursors and dendritic cells in vitro and in vivo. J Virol. (2014) 88:859–67. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02697-13

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  FanWJiaoPZhangHChenTZhouXQiYet al. Inhibition of African swine fever virus replication by porcine type I and type II interferons. Front Microbiol. (2020) 11:1203. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  OverendCMitchellRHeDRompatoGGrubmanMGarmendiaA. Recombinant swine beta interferon protects swine alveolar macrophages and MARC-145 cells from infection with Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. J Gen virol. (2007) 88:925–31. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82585-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  XiaCDanWWen-XueWJian-QingWLiWTian-YaoYet al. Cloning and expression of interferon-α/γ from a domestic porcine breed and its effect on classical swine fever virus. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2005) 104:81–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2004.10.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  ZixiangZDu XiaoliLPXiangleZFanYWeijunCHongTet al. Early growth response gene-1 suppresses foot-and-mouth disease virus replication by enhancing type I interferon pathway signal transduction. Front Microbiol. (2018) 9. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02326

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  KeHYooD. The viral innate immune antagonism and an alternative vaccine design for PRRS virus. Veterinary Microbiol. (2017) 209:75–89. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.03.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  ChabalgoityJABazARialAGrilleS. The relevance of cytokines for development of protective immunity and rational design of vaccines. Cytokine Growth factor Rev. (2007) 18:195–207. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2007.01.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  Gómez-VillamandosJBautistaMSánchez-CordónPCarrascoL. Pathology of African swine fever: the role of monocyte-macrophage. Virus Res. (2013) 173:140–9. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.01.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  TakamatsuH-HDenyerMSLacastaAStirlingCMArgilaguetJMNethertonCLet al. Cellular immunity in ASFV responses. Virus Res. (2013) 173:110–21. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2012.11.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  LacastaAMonteagudoPLJiménez-MarínÁAccensiFBallesterMArgilaguetJet al. Live attenuated African swine fever viruses as ideal tools to dissect the mechanisms involved in viral pathogenesis and immune protection. Veterinary Res. (2015) 46:1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13567-015-0275-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  MaclachlanNJDrewCDarpelKWorwaG. The pathology and pathogenesis of bluetongue. J Comp pathol. (2009) 141:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2009.04.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  MaclachlanNJHendersonCSchwartz-CornilIZientaraS. The immune response of ruminant livestock to bluetongue virus: from type I interferon to antibody. Virus Res. (2014) 182:71–7. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  ZhangWTGuoYYHuangJHZhangL. Progress in research on inflammation and oxidative stress induced by PRRSV. Hubei Agric Sci. (2021) 60:9.

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  DeepaPKoppu VasaviRSSravathiVRatherMM. Immune response to lumpy skin disease virus: Host-virus interactions and immunopathogenesis. Parma Innovation J. (2023) 12:711–4.

  • Google Scholar

• 166

  BarmanN. Immunopathogy of classical swine fever. J Immunol Immunopathol. (2018) 20:1–15. doi: 10.5958/0973-9149.2018.00002.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SummerfieldARuggliN. Immune responses against classical swine fever virus: between ignorance and lunacy. Front Veterinary Sci. (2015) 2:10. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2015.00010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  PengJYiJYangWRenJWenYZhengHet al. Advances in foot-and-mouth disease virus proteins regulating host innate immunity. Front Microbiol. (2020) 11:2046. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.02046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  BadrYNoreldinAEElewaYHAAhmedMSInoshimaYBakerNMet al. Cellular infiltration, cytokines, and histopathology of skin lesions associated with different clinical forms and stages of naturally occurring lumpy skin disease in cattle. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Diseases. (2022) 90:101894. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2022.101894

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  WangSZhangJZhangYYangJWangLQiYet al. Cytokine storm in domestic pigs induced by infection of virulent African swine fever virus. Front veterinary sci. (2021) 7:601641. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.601641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  ZuoXPengGZhaoJZhaoQZhuYXuYet al. Infection of domestic pigs with a genotype II potent strain of ASFV causes cytokine storm and lymphocyte mass reduction. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1361531. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1361531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  ThanawongnuwechRYoungTFThackerBJThackerEL. Differential production of proinflammatory cytokines: in vitro PRRSV and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae co-infection model. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2001) 79:115–27. doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(01)00243-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  RoyaeeARHusmannRJDawsonHDCalzada-NovaGSchnitzleinWMZuckermannFAet al. Deciphering the involvement of innate immune factors in the development of the host response to PRRSV vaccination. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2004) 102:199–216. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2004.09.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  BensaudeETurnerJLWakeleyPRSweetmanDAPardieuCDrewTWet al. Classical swine fever virus induces proinflammatory cytokines and tissue factor expression and inhibits apoptosis and interferon synthesis during the establishment of long-term infection of porcine vascular endothelial cells. J Gen virol. (2004) 85:1029–37. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.19637-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  von RosenTLohseLNielsenJUttenthalÅ. Classical swine fever virus infection modulates serum levels of INF-α, IL-8 and TNF-α in 6-month-old pigs. Res veterinary sci. (2013) 95:1262–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.09.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  DeMaulaCDLeuteneggerCMBonneauKRMacLachlanNJ. The role of endothelial cell-derived inflammatory and vasoactive mediators in the pathogenesis of bluetongue. Virology. (2002) 296:330–7. doi: 10.1006/viro.2002.1476

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  ChannappanavarRSinghKSinghRUmeshappaCIngaleSPandeyA. Enhanced proinflammatory cytokine activity during experimental bluetongue virus-1 infection in Indian native sheep. Veterinary Immunol immunopathol. (2012) 145:485–92. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2011.10.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  El-KarimDRGEl-AmrawiGASalamaAR. Serum concentration of some inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and proteins in holstein dairy cows affected with FMDV. J Advanced Veterinary Res. (2022) 12:686–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 179

  de Carvalho FerreiraHWeesendorpEElbersABoumaAQuakSStegemanJet al. African swine fever virus excretion patterns in persistently infected animals: A quantitative approach. Veterinary Microbiol. (2012) 160:327–40. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.06.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  RojasJ-MRodríguez-CalvoTSevillaN. Recall T cell responses to bluetongue virus produce a narrowing of the T cell repertoire. Veterinary Res. (2017) 48:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s13567-017-0444-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  TanakaTNarazakiMKishimotoT. IL-6 in inflammation, immunity, and disease. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol. (2014) 6:a016295. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a016295

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  SchäferAFranzoniGNethertonCLHartmannLBlomeSBlohmU. Adaptive cellular immunity against African swine fever virus infections. Pathogens. (2022) 11:274. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11020274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  TianYWangDHeSHaoXZhuJShangS. Immune cell early activation, apoptotic kinetic, and T-cell functional impairment in domestic pigs after ASFV CADC_HN09 strain infection. Front Microbiol. (2024) 15:1328177. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1328177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  HuangGLiuXTangXDuLFengWHuXet al. Increased neutralizing antibody production and interferon-γ secretion in response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus immunization in genetically modified pigs. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:1110. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  FranzoniGPedreraMSánchez-CordónPJ. African swine fever virus infection and cytokine response in vivo: an update. Viruses. (2023) 15:233. doi: 10.3390/v15010233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  OsorioFAGaleotaJNelsonEBrodersenBDosterAWillsRet al. Passive transfer of virus-specific antibodies confers protection against reproductive failure induced by a virulent strain of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and establishes sterilizing immunity. Virology. (2002) 302:9–20. doi: 10.1006/viro.2002.1612

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  WangQLiuHXuLLiJWuHYangCet al. Different clinical presentations of subgenotype 2.1 strain of classical swine fever infection in weaned piglets and adults, and long-term cross-protection conferred by a C-strain vaccine. Veterinary Microbiol. (2021) 253:108915. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108915

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  BooneJDBalasuriyaUBKaracaKAudonnetJ-CYaoJHeLet al. Recombinant canarypox virus vaccine co-expressing genes encoding the VP2 and VP5 outer capsid proteins of bluetongue virus induces high level protection in sheep. Vaccine. (2007) 25:672–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.08.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  RiesCBeerMHoffmannB. BTV antibody longevity in cattle five to eight years post BTV-8 vaccination. Vaccine. (2019) 37:2656–60. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  AlexandersenSZhangZDonaldsonAI. Aspects of the persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes infection. (2002) 4:1099–110. doi: 10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01634-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  Martínez-LoboFJDíez-FuertesFSimarroICastroJMPrietoC. The ability of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus isolates to induce broadly reactive neutralizing antibodies correlates with in vivo protection. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:691145. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.691145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  SabarthNHowardMKSavidis-DachoHvan MaurikABarrettPNKistnerO. Comparison of single, homologous prime-boost and heterologous prime-boost immunization strategies against H5N1 influenza virus in a mouse challenge model. Vaccine. (2010) 28:650–6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.105

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  StottJBarberTOsburnB. Immunologic response of sheep to inactivated and virulent bluetongue virus. Am J veterinary Res. (1985) 46:1043–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 194

  MartínVPascualEAviaMPenaLValcarcelFSevillaN. Protective efficacy in sheep of adenovirus-vectored vaccines against bluetongue virus is associated with specific T cell responses. PloS One. (2015) 10:e0143273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143273

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  Garcıá-BrionesMBlancoEChivaCAndreuDLeyVSobrinoF. Immunogenicity and T cell recognition in swine of foot-and-mouth disease virus polymerase 3D. Virology. (2004) 322:264–75. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2004.01.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Sanz-ParraAJimenez-ClaveroMGarcıa-BrionesMBlancoESobrinoFLeyV. Recombinant viruses expressing the foot-and-mouth disease virus capsid precursor polypeptide (P1) induce cellular but not humoral antiviral immunity and partial protection in pigs. Virology. (1999) 259:129–34. doi: 10.1006/viro.1999.9717

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  NelsonEAChristopher-HenningsJBenfieldDA. Serum immune responses to the proteins of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus. J Veterinary Diagn Invest. (1994) 6:410–5. doi: 10.1177/104063879400600402

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  EscribanoJMGalindoIAlonsoC. Antibody-mediated neutralization of African swine fever virus: myths and facts. Virus Res. (2013) 173:101–9. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2012.10.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  NeilanJGZsakLLuZBurrageTGKutishGFRockDL. Neutralizing antibodies to African swine fever virus proteins p30, p54, and p72 are not sufficient for antibody-mediated protection. Virology. (2004) 319:337–42. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2003.11.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  GunnBMBaiS. Building a better antibody through the Fc: advances and challenges in harnessing antibody Fc effector functions for antiviral protection. Hum Vaccines Immunotherapeutics. (2021) 17:4328–44. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1976580

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  RichardsonSIMoorePL. Targeting Fc effector function in vaccine design. Expert Opin Ther Targets. (2021) 25:467–77. doi: 10.1080/14728222.2021.1907343

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  RichardsonSIManamelaNPMotsoenengBMKaldineHAyresFMakhadoZet al. SARS-CoV-2 Beta and Delta variants trigger Fc effector function with increased cross-reactivity. Cell Rep Med. (2022) 3:100510. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100510

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  HaycroftERDavisSKRamanathanPLopezEPurcellRATanLLet al. Antibody Fc-binding profiles and ACE2 affinity to SARS-CoV-2 RBD variants. Med Microbiol Immunol. (2023) 212:291–305. doi: 10.1007/s00430-023-00773-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  SeredaADKazakovaASNamsraynSGVlasovMEKolbasovDV. The attenuated ASFV strains MK-200 and FK-32/135 as possible models for investigation of protective immunity by ASFV infection. PloS One. (2022) 17:e0270641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  NarayanRTripathiS. Intrinsic ADE: the dark side of antibody dependent enhancement during dengue infection. Front Cell Infection Microbiol. (2020) 10. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.580096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  CaiHZhangHChengHLiuMWenSRenJ. Progress in PRRSV infection and adaptive immune response mechanisms. Viruses. (2023) 15:1442. doi: 10.3390/v15071442

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  RobinsonLWindsorMMcLaughlinKHopeJJacksonTCharlestonB. Foot-and-mouth disease virus exhibits an altered tropism in the presence of specific immunoglobulins, enabling productive infection and killing of dendritic cells. J Virol. (2011) 85:2212–23. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02180-10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  SunwooS-YPérez-NúñezDMorozovISánchezEGGaudreaultNNTrujilloJDet al. DNA-protein vaccination strategy does not protect from challenge with African swine fever virus Armenia 2007 strain. Vaccines. (2019) 7:12. doi: 10.3390/vaccines7010012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  DejnirattisaiWJumnainsongAOnsirisakulNFittonPVasanawathanaSLimpitikulWet al. Cross-reacting antibodies enhance dengue virus infection in humans. Science. (2010) 328:745–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1185181

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  ZhuJJ. African swine fever vaccinology: the biological challenges from immunological perspectives. Viruses. (2022) 14:2021. doi: 10.3390/v14092021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  Marín-LópezAOtero-RomeroIde la PozaFMenaya-VargasRCalvo-PinillaEBenaventeJet al. VP2, VP7, and NS1 proteins of bluetongue virus targeted in avian reovirus muNS-Mi microspheres elicit a protective immune response in IFNAR (–/–) mice. Antiviral Res. (2014) 110:42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2014.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  CasalIVinuelaEEnjuanesL. Synthesis of African swine fever (ASF) virus-specific antibodies in vitro in a porcine leucocyte system. Immunology. (1987) 62:207.

  • Google Scholar

• 213

  CarrBVLefevreEAWindsorMAIngheseCGubbinsSPrenticeHet al. CD4+ T-cell responses to foot-and-mouth disease virus in vaccinated cattle. J Gen Virol. (2013) 94:97–107. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.045732-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  JanewayCAJr.TraversPWalportMShlomchikMJ. T cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health and Disease 5th edition. Fith ed. New York, USA: Garland Science (2001).

  • Google Scholar

• 215

  ZuckermannFAHusmannR. Functional and phenotypic analysis of porcine peripheral blood CD4/CD8 double-positive T cells. Immunology. (1996) 87:500.

  • Google Scholar

• 216

  AbubakarMManzoorSAhmedA. Interplay of foot and mouth disease virus with cell-mediated and humoral immunity of host. Rev Med Virol. (2018) 28:e1966. doi: 10.1002/rmv.1966

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  AnT-QLiJ-NSuC-MYooD. Molecular and cellular mechanisms for PRRSV pathogenesis and host response to infection. Virus Res. (2020) 286:197980. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2020.197980

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  Sánchez-CordónPJJabbarTChapmanDDixonLKMontoyaM. Absence of long-term protection in domestic pigs immunized with attenuated African swine fever virus isolate OURT88/3 or BeninΔMGF correlates with increased levels of regulatory T cells and interleukin-10. J Virol. (2020) 94:e00350-20. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00350-20

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  Bosch-CamósLLópezEColladoJNavasMJBlanco-FuertesMPina-PedreroSet al. M448R and MGF505-7R: two african swine fever virus antigens commonly recognized by ASFV-specific T-cells and with protective potential. Vaccines. (2021) 9:508. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9050508

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  XuLFanX-ZZhaoQ-ZZhangZ-XChenKNingY-bet al. Effects of vaccination with the C-strain vaccine on immune cells and cytokines of pigs against classical swine fever virus. Viral Immunol. (2018) 31:34–9. doi: 10.1089/vim.2017.0010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  LuckheeramRVZhouRVermaADXiaB. CD4+ T cells: differentiation and functions. Clin Dev Immunol. (2012) 2012:925135. doi: 10.1155/2012/925135

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  Silva-CampaEMata-HaroVMateuEHernándezJ. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus induces CD4+ CD8+ CD25+ Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs). Virology. (2012) 430:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2012.04.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  WangXMuGDangRYangZ. Up-regulation of IL-10 upon PRRSV vaccination impacts on the immune response against CSFV. Veterinary Microbiol. (2016) 197:68–71. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.11.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  LopezEHaycroftERAdairAMordantFLO’NeillMTPymmPet al. Simultaneous evaluation of antibodies that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 variants via multiplex assay. JCI Insight. (2021) 6:e150012. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.150012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  MariënJMichielsJHeyndrickxLNkuba-NdayeACeulemansABartholomeeusenKet al. Evaluation of a surrogate virus neutralization test for high-throughput serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2. J Virological Methods. (2021) 297:114228. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  TongXMcNamaraRAvendañoMSerranoEGarcía-SalumTPardo-RoaCet al. Waning and boosting of antibody Fc-effector functions upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:4174. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39189-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  LeeWSSelvaKJDavisSKWinesBDReynaldiAEsterbauerRet al. Decay of Fc-dependent antibody functions after mild to moderate COVID-19. Cell Rep Med. (2021) 2:100296. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  KaplonekPFischingerSCizmeciDBartschYCKangJBurkeJSet al. mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies maintain Fc effector functions across SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Immunity. (2022) 55:355–65.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  MusicòAFrigerioRMussidaABarzonLSinigagliaARiccettiSet al. SARS-CoV-2 epitope mapping on microarrays highlights strong immune-response to N protein region. Vaccines. (2021) 9:35. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9010035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  SainiSKHersbyDSTamhaneTPovlsenHRHernandezSPANielsenMet al. SARS-CoV-2 genome-wide T cell epitope mapping reveals immunodominance and substantial CD8+ T cell activation in COVID-19 patients. Sci Immunol. (2021) 6:eabf7550. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.abf7550

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  GlassEMillarP. Induction of effective cross-reactive immunity by FMDV peptides is critically dependent upon specific MHC-peptide-T cell interactions. Immunology. (1994) 82:1–8.

  • Google Scholar

• 232

  BalzKTrasslLHärtelVNelsonPPSkevakiC. Virus-induced T cell-mediated heterologous immunity and vaccine development. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:513. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00513

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  WOAH. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, Twelfth ed. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 234

  PatonDReeveRCapozzoAVLudiA. Estimating the protection afforded by foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the laboratory. Vaccine. (2019) 37:5515–24. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  MahapatraMParidaS. Foot and mouth disease vaccine strain selection: current approaches and future perspectives. Expert Rev Vaccines. (2018) 17:577–91. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2018.1492378

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  TrovatoMSartoriusRD’ApiceLMancoRDe BerardinisP. Viral emerging diseases: challenges in developing vaccination strategies. Front Immunol. (2020) 11. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar