Assessment of an oral Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine and an inactivated M. bovis preparation for wild boar in terms of adverse reactions, vaccine strain survival, and uptake by nontarget species

Wildlife vaccination is increasingly being considered as an option for tuberculosis control. We combined data from laboratory trials and an ongoing field trial to assess the risk of an oral Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine and a prototype heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis preparation for Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa). We studied adverse reactions, BCG survival, BCG excretion, and bait uptake by nontarget species. No adverse reactions were observed after administration of BCG (n = 27) or inactivated M. bovis (n = 21). BCG was not found at necropsy (175 to 300 days postvaccination [n = 27]). No BCG excretion was detected in fecal samples (n = 162) or in urine or nasal, oral, or fecal swab samples at 258 days postvaccination (n = 29). In the field, we found no evidence of loss of BCG viability in baits collected after 36 h (temperature range, 11°C to 41°C). Camera trapping showed that wild boar (39%) and birds (56%) were the most frequent visitors to bait stations (selective feeders). Wild boar activity patterns were nocturnal, while diurnal activities were recorded for all bird species. We found large proportions of chewed capsules (29%) (likely ingestion of the vaccine) and lost baits (39%) (presumably consumed), and the proportion of chewed capsules showed a positive correlation with the presence of wild boar. Both results suggest proper bait consumption (68%). These results indicate that BCG vaccination in wild boar is safe and that, while bait consumption by other species is possible, this can be minimized by using selective cages and strict timing of bait deployment.

Characterization of protection afforded by a bivalent virus-like particle vaccine against bluetongue virus serotypes 1 and 4 in sheep

BACKGROUND Bluetongue virus (BTV) is an economically important, arthropod borne, emerging pathogen in Europe, causing disease mainly in sheep and cattle. Routine vaccination for bluetongue would require the ability to distinguish between vaccinated and infected individuals (DIVA). Current vaccines are effective but are not DIVA. Virus-like particles (VLPs) are highly immunogenic structural mimics of virus particles, that only contain a subset of the proteins present in a natural infection. VLPs therefore offer the potential for the development of DIVA compatible bluetongue vaccines. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Merino sheep were vaccinated with either monovalent BTV-1 VLPs or a bivalent mixture of BTV-1 VLPs and BTV-4 VLPs, and challenged with virulent BTV-1 or BTV-4. Animals were monitored for clinical signs, antibody responses, and viral RNA. 19/20 animals vaccinated with BTV-1 VLPs either alone or in combination with BTV-4 VLPs developed neutralizing antibodies to BTV-1, and group specific antibodies to BTV VP7. The one animal that showed no detectable neutralizing antibodies, or group specific antibodies, had detectable viral RNA following challenge but did not display any clinical signs on challenge with virulent BTV-1. In contrast, all control animals' demonstrated classical clinical signs for bluetongue on challenge with the same virus. Six animals were vaccinated with bivalent vaccine and challenged with virulent BTV-4, two of these animals had detectable viral levels of viral RNA, and one of these showed clinical signs consistent with BTV infection and died. CONCLUSIONS There is good evidence that BTV-1 VLPs delivered as monovalent or bivalent immunogen protect from bluetongue disease on challenge with virulent BTV-1. However, it is possible that there is some interference in protective response for BTV-4 in the bivalent BTV-1 and BTV-4 VLP vaccine. This raises the question of whether all combinations of bivalent BTV vaccines are possible, or if immunodominance of particular serotypes could interfere with vaccine efficacy.

Characterization of the immune response induced by a commercially available inactivated bluetongue virus serotype 1 vaccine in sheep

The protective immune response generated by a commercial monovalent inactivated vaccine against bluetongue virus serotype 1 (BTV1) was studied. Five sheep were vaccinated, boost-vaccinated, and then challenged against BTV1 ALG/2006. RT-PCR did not detect viremia at any time during the experiment. Except a temperature increase observed after the initial and boost vaccinations, no clinical signs or lesions were observed. A specific and protective antibody response checked by ELISA was induced after vaccination and boost vaccination. This specific antibody response was associated with a significant increase in B lymphocytes confirmed by flow cytometry, while significant increases were not observed in T lymphocyte subpopulations (CD4(+), CD8(+), and WC1(+)), CD25(+) regulatory cells, or CD14(+) monocytes. After challenge with BTV1, the antibody response was much higher than during the boost vaccination period, and it was associated with a significant increase in B lymphocytes, CD14(+) monocytes, CD25(+) regulatory cells, and CD8(+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes.