Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-04T02:08:33.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antigenic differences between strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus of type SAT 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

N. St G. Hyslop ,
J. Davie  and
Sally P. Carter
N. St G. Hyslop
Affiliation:
Research Institute (Animal Virus Diseases), Pirbright, Surrey
J. Davie
Affiliation:
Research Institute (Animal Virus Diseases), Pirbright, Surrey
Sally P. Carter
Affiliation:
Research Institute (Animal Virus Diseases), Pirbright, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Antigenic differences between the strains RV 11 and SA 13/61 of foot-and-mouth disease virus (type SAT 1) were studied in vivo by cross-protection tests. Cattle inoculated with formolized antigen of either strain developed good immunity to experimental infection with the identical strain but little resistance to the other strain.

In vitro the results of complement fixation tests and of serum-virus neutralization tests in tissue culture were consistent with the observations made in vivo. The results of studies on the serological relationships between four strains of type SAT 1 are presented.

The importance of strain differences in the epizootiology and control of the disease is discussed briefly.

The authors wish to thank Dr I. A. Galloway and Dr J. B. Brooksby for their advice and criticism, and to acknowledge the valuable technical assistance of Mr K. Herniman, Mr R. L. G. King and Mr E. Scoates.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 217 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

References

Bradish, C. J. & Brooksby, J. B. (1960). Complement fixation studies of the specificity of the interactions between components of the virus system of foot-and-mouth disease and its antibodies. J. gen. Microbiol. 22, 405–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradish, C. J., Brooksby, J. B. & Tsubahara, H. (1960). The complement fixation test in studies of components of the virus system of foot-and-mouth disease and its antibodies. J. gen. Microbiol. 22, 392–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooksby, J. B. (1952). The technique of complement fixation in foot-and-mouth disease research. A.R.C. Rep. Ser. no. 12.Google Scholar
Davie, J. (1962). The classification of subtype variants of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Rapp. à la Xe Conference de la Commission permanente de la fièvre aphteuse, O.I.E., 12 Rue de Prony, Paris 17e, p. 34.Google Scholar
Frenkel, H. S. (1949). Histologic changes in explanted bovine epithelial tongue tissue infected with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Amer. J. vet. Res. 10, 142.Google ScholarPubMed
Frenkel, H. S. (1951). Research on foot-and-mouth disease. III. The cultivation of the virus on a practical scale in explantations of bovine tongue epithelium. Amer. J. vet. Res. 12, 187.Google ScholarPubMed
Frenkel, H. S. (1953). Recherches sur la fièvre aphteuse IV. Bull. Off. int. Epiz. 39, 91.Google Scholar
Galloway, I. A. (1962). Results of the use of two live attenuated vaccines, Rho 1 (SAT 2) and RV 11 (SAT 1) in controlling outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Rapp. à la Xe Conference de la Commission permanente de la fièvre aphteuse, O.I.E., 12 Rue de Prony, Paris 17e, p. 160.Google Scholar
Galloway, I. A., Henderson, W. M. & Brooksby, J. B. (1948). Strains of virus of foot-and-mouth disease recovered from outbreaks in Mexico. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N. Y., 69, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girard, H. & Mackowiak, C. (1950). Le virus O, Normandie. Bull. Off. int. Epiz. 33, 477.Google Scholar
Henderson, W. M. (1952 a). Comparison of different routes of inoculation of cattle for the detection of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, W. M. (1952 b). Significance of tests for non-infectivity of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 195.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, W. B. & Chapman, W. G. (1961). The tissue culture colour test for assaying the virus and neutralizing antibody of foot-and-mouth disease. Res. vet. Sci. 2, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, W. B., Davies, E. B. & Smith, I. K. M. (1962). The immunization of cattle with a mouse adapted strain of type SAT 2 of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Res. vet. Sci. 3, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röhrer, H., Möhlmann, H. & Pyl, G. (1951). Expériences faites au cours de la preparation et de l'emploi du vaccin adsorbé anti aphteux de L'Institut de Reims. Bull. Off. int. Epiz. 35, 35.Google Scholar
Traub, E. & Möhlmann, H. (1946). Die Pluralität des Maul und Klauenseuche virus. Berl. Münch. Tierärztl. Wschr. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Ubertini, B. (1951). Observations et recherches sur les differents virus de Ia fièvre aphteuse qui ont sévi dans la plaine du Po pendant les dix dernières années. Bull. Off. int. Epiz. 35, 627.Google Scholar