Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T07:35:32.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A serological evaluation of 1979–1982 Kenyan foot-and-mouth disease type SAT 2 viruses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

C. G. Ndiritu ,
E. J. Ouldridge ,
M. Head  and
M. M. Rweyemamu
C. G. Ndiritu
Affiliation:
Wellcome Biotechnology Limited, Wellcome FMD Vaccine Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey
E. J. Ouldridge
Affiliation:
Wellcome Biotechnology Limited, Wellcome FMD Vaccine Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey
M. Head
Affiliation:
Wellcome Biotechnology Limited, Wellcome FMD Vaccine Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey
M. M. Rweyemamu
Affiliation:
Wellcome Biotechnology Limited, Wellcome FMD Vaccine Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Serological evaluations of foot-and-mouth disease type SAT 2 viruses isolated in Kenya between 1979 and 1982 were performed using the two-dimensional microneutralization test. Nine field isolates of epizootiological significance were compared with four vaccine viruses. The results obtained identified Tan 5/68 as the most appropriate reference vaccine virus strain since it had the broadest serological spectrum. Potent Tan 5/68 vaccines would be expected to provide adequate protection against the contemporary SAT 2 field viruses. In the case of K 83/74, which also was shown to have a broad spectrum with viruses isolated in Kenya, the results show that the 1982 isolate from central Kenya was significantly divergent (r < 1·00 at P = 0·01) and warranted tactical revaccination for its control. The study highlighted the fact that strain R1215 which had been isolated from the oesophageal-pharyngeal swabs of asymptomatic carrier cattle had a narrow serological spectrum suggesting that such viruses could be unsuitable as vaccine for the national campaign.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 91 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 335 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. C., Doughty, W. J. & Spooner, P. R. (1982). Variation in the thermal stability of isolates of foot and mouth disease type SAT 2 and its significance in the selection of vaccine strains. Journal of Comparative Pathology 92, 495–507.Google Scholar
Crees, H. J. S. (1982). A brief administrative history of foot and mouth disease and its control in Kenya. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences International Rural Development Centre: Rural development study No. 14, Uppsala, 1982.Google Scholar
Chema, S. & Rweyemamu, M. M. (1978). Selection of SAT 2 foot and mouth disease vaccine strains for East Africa. Bulletin de l'office International des Epizooties 89 (11–12), 887–898.Google Scholar
Ndeti, J. K., Ndiritu, C. G., Chema, S., Schermbrucker, C. G., Pay, T. W. F. & Rweyemamu, M. M. (1982). The performance of FMD vaccines prepared in Kenya. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the FMD Commission, OIE, Paris, September 1982, p. 51.Google Scholar
Ouldridge, E. J., Head, M., Buck, H. & Rweyemamu, M. M. (1982). Studies with recent type O FMD isolates from South Hast Asia. Revue Scientifique el Technique de l'office International des Epizooties 1 (1), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rwbyemamu, M. M. (1970). Observations on foot and mouth disease type SAT 2 in Tanzania. Bulletin of Epizootic Diseases of Africa 18, 87–100.Google Scholar
Rweyrmamu, M. M., Booth, J. C., Head, M. & Pay, T. W. F. (1978). Microneutralization tests for serological typing and subtyping of foot and mouth disease virus strains. Journal of Hygiene 81, 107–123.Google Scholar
Rwkyemamu, M. M., (1983). Antigenic variation in foot and mouth disease: studies based on the virus neutralisation test. Journal of Biological Standards, in press.Google Scholar