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
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
Issue
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
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