Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T06:34:33.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential allergens in oil emulsion foot-and-mouth disease vaccines for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. Black  and
M. J Francis
L. Black
Affiliation:
Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, Pirbright, Surrey
M. J Francis
Affiliation:
Wellcome Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Laboratory, 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.

Reactions so far reported after the use of oil emulsion (OE) foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines in pigs have been infrequent and quick to resolve themselves. Although tentatively ascribed to anaphylaxis, these reactions have received little attention and their mechanism of causation has not been established conclusively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 477 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Barratt, M. E. J. (1969). Homocytotropic antibody in pigs infected with Metastrongylus spp. Veterinary Record 85, 390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basarab, O. (1978). The protection of fattening pigs against foot-and-mouth disease with an oil adjuvanted vaccine. 1. Studies on European foot-and-mouth disease virus strains. Proceedings 5th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Zagreb.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. G. (1971). Allergy problems with foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. M. V. Sc Thesis, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Black, L. (1977). Allergy in cattle after foot-and-mouth disease vaccination. Veterinary Record 100, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, L. & Francis, M. J. (1983). Titration of allergenicity using a Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis Inhibition Test. Journal of Immunological Methods 64, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, L., Menard, F. J. R.R., Beadle, G. G. & Pay, T. W. F. (1975). Hypersensitivity in cattle after foot-and-mouth disease vaccination: response to hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. Journal of Hygiene 75, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L. & Pay, T. W. F. (1975). The evaluation of hypersensitivity tests in cattle after foot-and-mouth disease vaccination. Journal of Hygiene 74, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capstick, P. B., Pay, T. W. F., Beadle, G. G., Bandau, R. & Boge, A. (1970). Some studies on allergic reactions to foot-and-mouth disease vaccine in Lower Saxony, Germany. European Commission for the control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Report of the Meeting of the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee, Brescia, Italy (1969), Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Coop, R. (1969). Studies on the pathogenesis of lungworm infections in pigs. PhD Thesis, University of Wales.Google Scholar
De Buysscher, E. V., Chong, K. B. & Lukert, P. D. (1980). Reaginic antibody and IgE in the Pig. Proceedings of the International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Metzger, J. J. (1976). Les reéactions d'hypersensibilitée chez le porc. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 152, 169–173.Google Scholar
Stanworth, D. R. (1973). Immediate hypersensitivity. In Frontiers of Biology, Vol. 28 (ed. Neuberger, A., Tatum, E. L.). Amsterdam and London: North Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Telling, R. C., Capstick, P. B., Pay, T. W. F. & Menard, F. J. R. R. (1972). The large scale manufacture of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines by the BHK deep suspension culture method. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Virology, Budapest 1971.Google Scholar
Wells, P. W., Pass, D. A. & Eyre, P. (1974). Acute systemic immediate hypersensitivity in the pig. Research in Veterinary Science 16, 347–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed