|Pacheco Tobin, Juan|
|Ferman, Geoffrey S|
Submitted to: Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
Publication Type: Review Article
Publication Acceptance Date: 1/15/2010
Publication Date: 4/1/2010
Publication URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10113/44048
Citation: Pacheco Tobin, J., Butler, J.E., Jew, J., Ferman, G., Zhu, J.J., Golde, W.T. 2010. IgA antibody response of swine to foot-and-mouth disease virus infection and vaccination. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. p. 550-558. Interpretive Summary: The antibody response to vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) often correlates with protection of animals against infection. The different types of antibodies induced are of interest, as the quality of the response may be critical to the level of protection. Specifically, mucosal antibodies in the saliva and nasal secretions are predicted to be very efficient at blocking virus infection, as the infection is primarily initiated in the upper respiratory tract. Here, we have reviewed the literature for information on all antibody responses with an emphasis on mucosal antibodies to FMDV. In most of the reported work, the induction of mucosal antibody following vaccination is lacking. These responses are always detected after infection of naïve animals or challenge of vaccinated animals with live virus. Development of new vaccine formulations and delivery systems that induce a mucosal antibody response will likely result in greatly improved vaccines.
Technical Abstract: Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV) specific antibodies, specifically neutralizing antibodies, are known to protect against virus infection in vitro and are predictive of protection in vivo. Of interest is the role of antibodies against FMDV in mucosal secretions, in particular in the oropharyngeal area as this region is the most common natural route of infection with FMDV. In this review, we seek to summarize data showing the quality of the antibody response to FMDV is more accurately assayed using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) characterized for specificity for antibody molecules. Within that context, the consensus of these publications is that in both cattle and swine, intramuscular vaccination with a conventional inactivated virus vaccine for FMDV induces little or no immunoglobulin A (IgA) response in serum or saliva. After infection, IgA can be detected in both serum and saliva, indicating a mucosal response to the live virus. Vaccination with live-modified vaccines to other viral infections of these livestock species has proven to induce mucosal antibody responses characterized by IgA anti-virus in secretions and also detectable in serum. Given the primary route of spread from animal to animal is by the oral route, induction of mucosal immunity continues to be a primary target of new vaccine strategies under development.