Oqsil kasalligiga qarşi emlaş samaradorligini baholaşda postvaksinal serologik monitoringning ahamiyati

The importance of post-vaccination serological monitoring in assessing the effectiveness of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease

Main Article Content

S.A. Ashurov
U.M. Madaminov
Sh.Sh. Allaberganova

Abstract

This article highlights the scientific and practical significance of using serological monitoring to assess post-vaccination immunity in vaccinated farm animals. The study included 250 animals: 120 cattle, 80 sheep, and 50 goats. Blood serum samples were analyzed prior to vaccination and at 7, 14, 21, 30, 60, and 90 days post-vaccination. Antibodies against structural proteins of the foot-and-mouth disease virus were detected using the SP-ELISA method. To assess potential contact with the wild-type virus, selected samples were also tested using NSP-ELISA. The study found that the proportion of animals possessing protective antibodies rose from 40.0% at the time of vaccination to 87.6% by day 30; this figure stood at 84.0% on day 60 and 78.0% on day 90. The highest rates of post-vaccination seropositivity were observed in cattle. The results demonstrate that post-vaccination serological monitoring provides a basis for evaluating actual population immunity, identifying unprotected animals, and determining appropriate revaccination schedules, rather than merely measuring vaccination coverage.

Article Details

Section

Veterinary medicine and animal health

How to Cite

Ashurov, S., Madaminov, U., & Allaberganova, S. (2026). The importance of post-vaccination serological monitoring in assessing the effectiveness of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. Partner Conferences of the International Scientific Journal Research Focus, 1(10), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.66073/ReFocus-Conf/1311001

References

World Organisation for Animal Health. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals: Foot and Mouth Disease (infection with foot and mouth disease virus). Paris: WOAH, 2024.

Grubman M.J., Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease // Clinical Microbiology Reviews. — 2004. — Vol. 17, No. 2. — P. 465–493. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.17.2.465-493.2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.17.2.465-493.2004

FAO, EuFMD, OIE. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccination and post-vaccination monitoring: Guidelines. — Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016.

Lyons N.A., Lyoo Y.S., King D.P., Paton D.J. Challenges of generating and maintaining protective vaccine-induced immune responses for foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs // Frontiers in Veterinary Science. — 2016. — Vol. 3. — Article 102. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00102

Paton D.J., de Clercq K., Greiner M., Dekker A., Brocchi E., Bergmann I. et al. Application of non-structural protein antibody tests in substantiating freedom from foot-and-mouth disease virus infection after emergency vaccination of cattle // Vaccine. — 2006. — Vol. 24, No. 42–43. — P. 6503–6512. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.06.032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.06.032

Clavijo A., Wright P., Kitching P. Developments in diagnostic techniques for differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease // The Veterinary Journal. — 2004. — Vol. 167, No. 1. — P. 9–22. DOI: 10.1016/S1090-0233(03)00087-X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(03)00087-X

Barnett P.V., Cox S.J. The role of small ruminants in the epidemiology and transmission of foot-and-mouth disease // The Veterinary Journal. — 1999. — Vol. 158, No. 1. — P. 6–13. DOI: 10.1053/tvjl.1998.0338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.1998.0338

Wong C.L., Yong C.Y., Ong H.K., Ho K.L., Tan W.S. Advances in the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease // Frontiers in Veterinary Science. — 2020. — Vol. 7. — Article 477. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00477