Field Trial with Vaccine Candidates Against Bovine Tuberculosis Among Likely Infected Cattle in a Natural Transmission Setting
Ximena Ferrara Muñiz,Elizabeth García,Federico Carlos Blanco,Sergio Garbaccio,Carlos Garro,Martín Zumárraga,Odir Dellagostin,Marcos Trangoni,María Jimena Marfil,Maria Verónica Bianco,Alejandro Abdala,Javier Revelli,Maria Bergamasco,Adriana Soutullo,Rocío Marini,Rosana Valeria Rocha,Amorina Sánchez,Fabiana Bigi,Ana María Canal,María Emilia Eirin,Angel Adrián Cataldi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12101173
2024-10-17
Vaccines
Abstract:Background/Objectives: Vaccines may improve the control and eradication of bovine tuberculosis. However, the evaluation of experimental candidates requires the assessment of the protection, excretion, transmission and biosafety. A natural transmission trial among likely infected animals was conducted. Methods: Seventy-four male heifers were randomly distributed (five groups) and vaccinated subcutaneously with attenuated strains (M. bovis Δmce2 or M. bovis Δmce2-phoP), a recombinant M. bovis BCG Pasteur (BCGr) or M. bovis BCG Pasteur. Then, they cohoused with a naturally infected bTB cohort under field conditions exposed to the infection. Results: A 23% of transmission of wild-type strains was confirmed (non-vaccinated group). Strikingly, first vaccination did not induce immune response (caudal fold test and IFN-gamma release assay). However, after 74 days of exposure to bTB, animals were re-vaccinated. Although their sensitization increased throughout the trial, the vaccines did not confer significant protection, when compared to the non-vaccinated group, as demonstrated by pathology progression of lesions and confirmatory tools. Besides, the likelihood of acquiring the infection was similar in all groups compared to the non-vaccinated group (p > 0.076). Respiratory and digestive excretion of viable vaccine candidates was undetectable. To note, the group vaccinated with M. bovis Δmce2-phoP exhibited the highest proportion of animals without macroscopic lesions, compared to the one vaccinated with BCG, although this was not statistically supported. Conclusions: This highlights that further evaluation of these vaccines would not guarantee better protection. The limitations detected during the trial are discussed regarding the transmission rate of M. bovis wild-type, the imperfect test for studying sensitization, the need for a DIVA diagnosis and management conditions of the trials performed under routine husbandry conditions. Re-vaccination of likely infected bovines did not highlight a conclusive result, even suggesting a detrimental effect on those vaccinated with M. bovis BCG.
immunology,medicine, research & experimental