Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-03T12:18:08.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attempts to infect pigs with Coxsackie virus type B5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. J. M. Garland  and
J. A. Mann
A. J. M. Garland
Affiliation:
Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey
J. A. Mann
Affiliation:
Animal Virus Research Institute, 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.

Despite the existence of a close serological relationship between the entero-viruses Swine Vesicular Disease (SVD) and Coxsackie type B5 (Cx B5), the administration of this Coxsackie virus type to susceptible pigs by various routes failed to produce clinical disease.

Viraemia was not detected after exposure but virus was recovered intermittently from faeces and buccal swabs. A mixed virus population was demonstrated in faecal cultures from some pigs, including Coxsackie virus type B5 and other agents, presumably native pig enteroviruses. The Coxsackie virus persisted in faeces in declining amounts for up to 8 days after primary exposure.

Serum neutralizing antibody showed a transient rise to Coxsackie virus, reaching a peak at 14 days and declining below demonstrable titres by 28 days after exposure. The antibody titres attained were proportional to the dose of virus administered and the degree of neutralization was very similar to both SVD and Cx B5 viruses.

On cross challenge by exposure to SVD virus 28 days after exposure to Cx B5 virus, most animals (5/6) succumbed with typical vesicular lesions, although the serum neutralizing antibody titres showed a characteristically anamnestic response to both viruses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1974 , pp. 85 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

REFERENCES

Betts, A. O. & Jennings, A. R. (1966) cited by Omar, A. R., Jennings, A. R. & Betts, A. O. (1966). The experimental disease produced in calves by the J121 strain of Parainfluenza virus type 3. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 379.Google Scholar
Brown, F., Talbot, P. & Burrows, R. (1973). Antigenic differences between isolates of swine vesicular disease virus and their relationship to Coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, London 245, 315.Google Scholar
Burrows, R. (1968). The persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in sheep. Journal of Hygiene 66, 633.Google Scholar
Burrows, R., Greig, A. & Goodridge, D. (1973). Swine vesicular disease. Research in Veterinary Science 15, 141.Google Scholar
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.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.Google Scholar
De castro, M. P. (1964). Behaviour of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in cell cultures: susceptibility of the IB-RS-2 line. Archives do Instituto Biologico São Paulo 31, 63.Google Scholar
Dhennin, L. & Dhennin, L. (1973). La maladie vesiculeuse du pore. Son apparition en France. Bulletin de l'académie Vétérinaire de France 46, 47.Google Scholar
Fischman, H. R. & Bang, F. B. (1966). Antigenic relationship of the human and bovine Parainfluenza 3 viruses using the Ouchterlony technique. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology & Medicine 121, 966.Google Scholar
Graves, J. H. (1973). Serological relationship of swine vesicular disease virus and Coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, London 245, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imagawa, D. T. (1968). Relationship among measles, canine distemper and rinderpest viruses. Progress in Medical Virology 10, 160.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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Report of 20th Session of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (1973). Rome, Food & Agriculture Organization of United Nations, 59.Google Scholar
Sellers, R. F. & Herniman, K. A. J. (1974). The airborne excretion by pigs of swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of Hygiene 72, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. G. & Hore, D. E. (1970). Comparative pathology of lambs and calves infected with Parainfluenza type 3. Journal of Comparative Pathology 80, 613.Google Scholar
Various Authors (1972). Influenza in animals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 47, 439.Google Scholar
Verlinde, J. D. & Versteeg, J. (1958). Coxsackie-Viruspneumonie bij biggen als smetstofbron voor de mens. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 83, 459.Google Scholar