Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T02:42:14.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swine vesicular disease: pathways of infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. A. Mann  and
G. H. Hutchings
J. A. Mann
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Surrey
G. H. Hutchings
Affiliation:
The Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, 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.

The pathways of infection in swine vesicular disease have been studied by (i) an estimation of the amounts of virus required to produce infection by different artificial inoculation procedures; (ii) the distribution and amounts of virus in various tissues of pigs killed at intervals after contact infection; (iii) an investigation of the susceptibility to virus infection of pig tissue explants.

The results show that pigs can be infected by a number of pathways and that the skin, as the most susceptible tissue, is probably the most frequent route of infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , June 1980 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, T. J. L. & Betts, A. O. (1967). Further studies on porcine enteroviruses isolated at Cambridge. II. Serological grouping. Research in Veterinary Science 8, 330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betts, A. O. & Jennings, A. R. (1960). Studies on enteroviruses of the pig. V. The experimental disease induced in pathogen-free, colostrum-deprived pigs by the T80 and T52A strains of a swine poliencephalomyelitis virus. Research in Veterinary Science 1, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, F. & Wild, F. (1974). Variation in the coxsackievirus type B5 and its possible role in the etiology of swine vesicular disease. Intervirology 3, 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, F., Wild, T. F., Rowe, L. W., Underwood, B. O. & Harris, T. J. R. (1976). Comparison of swine vesicular disease virus and coxsackie B5 virus by serological and RNA hybridization methods. Journal of General Virology 31, 231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burrows, R., Mann, J. A. & Goodridge, D. (1974). Swine vesicular disease: virological studies of experimental infections produced by the England/72 virus. Journal of Hygiene 72, 135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, S. F. & Huck, R. A. (1967). Viruses isolated in association with herd infertility, abortions and stillbirths in pigs. Veterinary Record 81, 196.Google Scholar
Dawe, P. S., Forman, A. J. & Smale, C. J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of the swine vesicular disease epidemic in Britain. Nature, London 241, 540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Castro, M. P. (1964). Behaviour of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in cell cultures: susceptibility of the IB-RS-2 line. Archivos do Instituto Biologico São Paulo 31, 63.Google Scholar
Dunne, H. W. (1975). Diseases of Swine, 4th ed. chap. 15 – Porcine enteroviruses (ed. Dunne, H. W, Lemanne, A. D.), Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Dunne, H. W., Gobble, J. L., Hokanson, J. F., Kradel, D. C. & Bubash, G. R. (1965). Porcine reproductive failure associated with a newly identified ‘SMEDI’ group of picorna viruses. American Journal of Veterinary Research 26, 1284.Google ScholarPubMed
Gois, M. (1971). cited by Dunne, H. W. (1975) in Diseases of Swine, 4th ed. (ed. Dunne, H. W. and Leman, A. D.), p. 359. Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Graves, J. H. (1973). Serological relationship of swine vesicular disease virus and coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, London, 245, 314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, B. B., Bohl, E. H. & Birkeland, J. M. (1959). Swine kidney cell cultures–susceptibility to viruses and use in isolation of enteric viruses of swine. American Journal of Veterinary Research 20, 127.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, T. J. R. & Brown, F. (1975). Correlation of polypeptide composition with antigenie variation in the swine vesicular disease and coxsackie B5 viruses. Nature, London 258, 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, T. J. R., Doel, T. R. & Brown, F. (1977). Molecular aspects of the antigenic variation of swine vesicular disease and coxsackie B5 viruses. Journal of General Virology 35, 299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C. M. & Dunne, H. W. (1974). In Diseases of Swine, 4th ed. (ed. Dunne, H. W. and Leman, A. D.), p. 357. Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Knowles, N. J., Buckley, L. S. & Pereira, H. G. (1979). The classification of porcine enteroviruses by antigenie analysis and cytopathic effect on tissue culture: description of three new sero-types. Archives of Virology 62, 201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, P. H. & Betts, A. O. (1960). Studies on enteroviruses of the pig. IV. The isolation in tissue culture of a possible neteric cytopathogenic swine orphan (ECSO) virus (V 13) from the faeces of a pig. Research in Veterinary Science 1, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. F., Koestner, A. & Kasza, L. (1966). Pericarditis and myocarditis in germ free and pathogen-free pigs experimentally infected with a porcine poliocephalomyelitis virus. Laboratory Investigations 15, 1128.Google Scholar
Mann, J. A., Burrows, R. & Goodridge, D. (1975). Mild and sub-clinical infections with swine vesicular disease virus. Bulletin de l'Office International des Epizooties 83, 117.Google Scholar
Mayr, A. & Hecke, F. (1960). Epidemiological, pathological and immunological studies on Teschen disease of swine. Bulletin de l'Office International des Epizooties 54, 445.Google Scholar
Mowat, G. N., Darbyshire, J. H. & Huntley, J. F. (1972). Differentiation of a vesicular disease of pigs in Hong Kong from foot-and-mouth disease. Veterinary Record 90, 618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardelli, L., Lodetti, E., Gualandi, G. L., Burrows, R., Goodridge, D., Brown, F. & Cartwright, B. (1968). A foot-and-mouth disease syndrome in pigs caused by an enterovirus. Nature, London 219, 1275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarr, L. & Getty, R. (1964). The interrelationships of the lymph vessel connections of the lymph nodes of the head, neck, and shoulder regions of swine. American Journal of Veterinary Research 25, 618.Google Scholar
Sibalin, M. & Lannek, N. (1960). An enteric porcine virus producing encephalomyelitis and pneumonitis in baby pigs. Archive für die gesamte Virusforschung 10, 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, K. V., Bohl, E. H. & Saxler, V. L. (1964). Encephalomyelitis of pigs produced experimentally by a porcine enterovirus. Cornell Veterinarian 54, 612.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, J. T., Dunne, H. W., Griel, L. C., Hokanson, J. F. & Murphy, D. M. (1973). Mortality, antibody development, and viral persistence in porcine fetuses inoculated in utero with SMEDI (entero-)virus. American Journal of Veterinary Research 34, 785.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R. & Burrows, R. (1972). The growth of foot-and-mouth disease virus in organ cultures of bovine tissues. Archiv für die gesamte Virusforschung 37, 145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamanouchi, K., Bankowski, R. A., Howarth, J. A. & Huck, R. A. (1964). Rorcine enteroviruses: distribution of neutralizing antibodies to E1 and E4 strains in serums of swine from 3 states. American Journal of Veterinary Research 25, 609.Google Scholar