Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:31:15.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vaccination against classical swine fever virus: limitations and new strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

Irene Greiser-Wilke  and
Volker Moennig
Irene Greiser-Wilke*
Affiliation:
Institute of Virology, EU Reference Laboratory for Classical Swine Fever, School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany
Volker Moennig
Affiliation:
Institute of Virology, EU Reference Laboratory for Classical Swine Fever, School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany
*
*Institute of Virology, EU Reference Laboratory for Classical Swine Fever, School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Buenteweg 17, 30552 Hannover, Germany E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most widely used vaccines for the control of classical swine fever (CSF) in countries where it is endemic are live attenuated virus strains, which are highly efficacious, inducing virtually complete protection against challenge with pathogenic virus. In the European Union (EU), the combination of prophylactic mass vaccination and culling of infected pigs in endemic regions has made it possible to almost eradicate the disease. However, it is not possible to discriminate between infected and vaccinated animals, thus hampering disease control measures that rely on serology. Therefore, vaccination was banned at the end of 1990 before the internal common market was established in the EU. Vaccination is allowed only in severe emergencies. In addition, there are strict restrictions on the international trade in pig products from countries using vaccination. To circumvent these problems, marker vaccines which allow differentiation of infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) have been developed. There are several approaches, ranging from protective peptides, single expressed proteins, naked DNA and chimeric viruses. To date, two subunit vaccines based on the E2 glycoprotein are commercially available and have been tested extensively for their efficacy. The accompanying discriminatory tests are based on an ELISA detecting another viral glycoprotein, the Erns. The subunit vaccines were found to be less efficacious than live attenuated vaccines. In addition, the currently available discriminatory tests do not provide high enough specificity and sensitivity. Although there is an urgent need for more advanced marker vaccines and better discriminatory tests, the development of new DIVA vaccines against CSF is hampered by the small market potential for these products.

Keywords

classical swine fevervaccinesDIVAdiscriminatory ELISA
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Health Research Reviews , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 2004 , pp. 223 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © CAB International 2004

Access options

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

References

Ahrens, U, Kaden, V, Drexler, C and Visser, N (2000). Efficacy of the classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine Porcilis Pesti in pregnant sows. Veterinary Microbiology 77: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aynaud, JM (1988). Principles of vaccination. In: Liess, B editor. Classical Swine Fever and Related Viral Infections. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff pp. 165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biront, P and Leunen, J (1988). Vaccines. In: Liess, B editor. Classical Swine Fever and Related Viral Infections. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff pp. 181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalsgaard, K and Overby, E (1976). Vaccination of pigs against hog cholera (classical swine fever) with a detergent split vaccine. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 17: 465–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Smit, AJ, Bouma, A, de Kluijver, EP, Terpstra, C and Moormann, RJ (2000). Prevention of transplacental transmission of moderate–virulent classical swine fever virus after single or double vaccination with an E2 subunit vaccine. Veterinary Quarterly 22: 150–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Smit, AJ, Bouma, A, de Kluijver, EP, Terpstra, C and Moormann, RJM (2001a). Duration of the protection of an E2 subunit marker vaccine against classical swine fever after a single vaccination. Veterinary Microbiology 78: 307–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Smit, AJ, Bouma, A, van Gennip, EP, de Kluijver, EP and Moormann, RJM (2001b). Chimeric (marker) C-strain viruses induce clinical protection against virulent classical swine fever virus (CSFV) and reduce transmission of CSFV between vaccinated pigs. Vaccine 19: 1467–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Depner, KR, Bouma, A, Koenen, F, Klinkenberg, D, Lange, E, de Smit, H and Vanderhallen, H (2001). Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial II. Challenge study in pregnant sows. Veterinary Microbiology 83: 107–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewulf, J, Laevens, H, Koenen, F, Mintiens, K and de Kruif, A (2001). An E2 sub-unit marker vaccine does not prevent horizontal or vertical transmission of classical swine fever virus. Vaccine 20: 86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, XN, Wei, K, Liu, ZQ and Chen, YH (2002). Candidate peptide vaccine induced protection against classical swine fever virus. Vaccine 13: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S, Fukusho, A, Lefevre, P-C, Lipowski, A, Pejsak, Z, Roehe, P and Westergaard, J (2000). Classical swine fever: the global situation. Veterinary Microbiology 73: 103–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbers, ARW (2002). Local and global impact of disease outbreaks. Advances in Pork Production 13: 17–27.Google Scholar
Elbers, AR, Stegemann, A, Moser, H, Ekker, HM, Smak, JA and Pluimers, FH (1999). The classical swine fever epidemic 1997–1998 in The Netherlands: descriptive epidemiology. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 42: 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union (1980). EU Council Directive 80/217/EEC of 22 January 1980 introducing community measures for the control of classical swine fever (last amended 14 June 1993). Official Journal of the European Communities pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Floegel-Niesmann, G (2001). Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial III. Evaluation of discriminatory ELISAs. Veterinary Microbiology 83: 121–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greiser-Wilke, I, Fritzemeier, J, Koenen, F, Vanderhallen, H, Rutili, D, De Mia, GM, Romero, L, Sanchez-Vizcaino, JM, Rosell, R and San Gabriel, A (2000). Molecular epidemiology of a large classical swine fever epidemic in the European Union in 1997–1998. Veterinary Microbiology 77: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahn, J, Park, SH, Song, JY, An, SH and Ahn, BY (2001). Construction of recombinant swinepox viruses and expression of the classical swine fever virus E2 protein. Journal of Virological Methods 93: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, JM, Jansen, ES, Morrissy, CJ, Williamson, MM, Hodgson, AL and Johnson, MA (2001). Oral and sub-cutaneous vaccination of commercial pigs with a recombinant porcine adenovirus expressing the classical swine fever virus gp55 gene. Archives of Virology 146: 1787–1793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaashoek, MJ, Moerman, A, Madic, J, Rijsewijk, FA, Quak, J, Gielkens, AL and van Oirschot, JT (1994). A conventionally attenuated glycoprotein E-negative strain of bovine herpesvirus type 1 is an efficacious and safe vaccine. Vaccine 12: 439–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenen, F, van Caenegem, G, Vermeersch, JP, Vandenheede, J and Delyker, H (1996). Epidemiological characteristics of an outbreak of classical swine fever in an area of high pig density. Veterinary Record 139: 367–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moennig, V and Floegel-Niesmann, G and Greiser-Wilke, I (2003). Clinical signs and epidemiology of classical swine fever: A review of new knowledge. Veterinary Journal 165: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moormann, RJM, Bouma, A, Kramps, JA, Terpstra, C and de Smit, HJ (2000). Development of a classical swine fever subunit marker vaccine and companion diagnostic test. Veterinary Microbiology 73: 209–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paton, D (2002). The reappearance of classical swine fever in England in 2000. In: Morilla, A, Hernandez, P, Yoon, JK and Zimmerman, J, editors. Trends in Emerging Viral Infections of Swine Ames (IA): Iowa State Press pp. 153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, DJ and Greiser-Wilke, I (2003). Classical swine fever–an update. Veterinary Research 75: 169–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rümenapf, T, Stark, R, Meyers, G and Thiel, H-J (1991). Structural proteins of hog cholera virus expressed by vaccinia virus: Further characterization and induction of protective immunity. Journal of Virology 65: 589–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiel, H-J, Plagemann, PGW and Moennig, V (1996). Pestiviruses (Chapter 33). In: Fields, BN, Knipe, DM, Howley, PM, Chanock, RM, Melnick, JL, Monath, TP, Roizman, B and Strauss, SE, editors. Field's Virology 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven pp. 1059–1073Google Scholar
Uttenthal, A, Le Potier, M-F, Romero, L, De-Mia, GM and Floegel-Niesmann, G (2001). Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial I. Challenge studies in weaner pigs. Veterinary Microbiology 83: 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gennip, HG, van Rijn, PA, Widjojoatmodjo, MN, de Smit, AJ and Moormann, RJ (2000). Chimeric classical swine fever viruses containing envelope protein E(RNS) or E2 of bovine viral diarrhoea virus protect pigs against challenge with CSFV and induce a distinguishable antibody response. Vaccine 19: 447–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Gennip, HG, Bouma, A, van Rijn, PA, Widjojoatmodjo, MN and Moormann, RJ (2002). Experimental non-transmissible marker vaccines for classical swine fever (CSF) by trans-complementation of E(rns) or E2 of CSFV. Vaccine 20: 1544–1456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Oirschot, JT (1999). Diva vaccines that reduce virus transmission. Journal of Biotechnology 73: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Oirschot, JT, Kaashoek, MJ, Rijsewijk, FA and Stegeman, JA (1996). The use of marker vaccines in eradication of herpesviruses. Journal of Biotechnology 44: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Rijn, PA, van Gennip, HGP and Moormann, RJM (1999). An experimental marker vaccine and accompanying serological diagnostic test both based on envelope glycoprotein E2 of classical swine fever (CSFV). Vaccine 17: 433–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiland, E, Stark, R, Haas, B, Ruemenapf, T, Meyers, G, Thiel, H-J (1990). Pestivirus glycoprotein which induces neutralizing antibodies forms part of a disulfide-linked heterodimer. Journal of Virology 64: 3563–3569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wengler, G, Bradley, DW, Collett, MS, Heinz, FX, Schlesinger, RW and Strauss, JH (1995). Flaviviridae. In: Murphy, FA, Fauquet, CM, Bishop, DHL, Ghabrial, SA, Jarvis, AW, Martelli, GP, Mayo, MA and Summers, MD, editors. Virus Taxonomy. Sixth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. New York: Springer pp. 415–427Google Scholar
Yu, X, Tu, C, Li, H, Hu, R, Chen, C, Li, Z, Zhang, M and Yin, Z (2001). DNA-mediated protection against classical swine fever virus. Vaccine 19: 1520–1525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed