Meyer H, Steinbach G, Hartmann H, Hauke H, Koch H, Stelzner A, Linde K, Schmerbauch A, Kiupel H
Arch Exp Veterinarmed. 1977;31(1):95-113.
Reported are results obtained from studies into oral and parenteral immunisation of calf. The approaches had included the use of live (Smd) or dead antigen from Salmonella (S.) dublin and a combination of the two immunisation methods. Live antigen (Smd) was superior to thermally activated dead antigen, when the oral route was used to prevent S.-dublin injection of calves. The above findings were supported by results from analogous studies in which S. typhimurium and S. dublin or live antigen (Smd) or dead antigen, made of the two, had been applied to mice. (One single subcutaneous) parenteral administration did hardly reveal any difference in favour of live vaccine (Smd). Parenteral administration of live or dead antigen proved to be less effective than repeated oral immunisation, particularly when live vaccine (Smd) was used. Immunity not less than up to six months of age against S. dublin wild strain infection can be provided for young calves by oral immunisation, with Smd vaccine (5. 1010 to 1. 1011 live germs/d) being given on ten consecutive days. Calves orally immunised with live antigen (ten repetitive applications of Smd mutants) are likely to develop an antibody titre (H-agglutinins) against S. dublin. Parenteral boostering,using live antigen, has been accompanied by sensitisation due to oral live antigen administration as well as by dose dependence, as was seen from the bactericidal values. Sensitisation was established from orally immunised calves up to three months old (typical booster reaction). Some of it was attributabale to confrontation with wild strains of Salmonella. The H-agglutinin titres of animals aged threemonths in a calf herd with salmonelloses in which all animals had been orally Smd-immunised were close to those recorded from calves in stocks with no salmonellosis occurrence. Under the conditions of oral immunisation, there had obviously been no action of the wild strain which might have triggered intensive antibody formation.
报告了对犊牛进行口服和肠胃外免疫的研究结果。这些方法包括使用来自都柏林沙门氏菌的活(Smd)或死抗原,以及两种免疫方法的组合。当采用口服途径预防犊牛感染都柏林沙门氏菌时,活抗原(Smd)优于热灭活的死抗原。上述发现得到了类似研究结果的支持,在这些研究中,鼠伤寒沙门氏菌和都柏林沙门氏菌或由两者制成的活抗原(Smd)或死抗原被应用于小鼠。(单次皮下)肠胃外给药几乎没有显示出活疫苗(Smd)有任何优势。事实证明,肠胃外给予活抗原或死抗原的效果不如重复口服免疫,特别是当使用活疫苗(Smd)时。通过口服免疫,连续十天给幼龄犊牛投喂Smd疫苗(5.10¹⁰至1.10¹¹个活菌/天),可以为其提供长达六个月龄的抗都柏林沙门氏菌野生菌株感染的免疫力。用活抗原口服免疫的犊牛(十次重复投喂Smd突变体)可能会产生针对都柏林沙门氏菌的抗体滴度(H-凝集素)。从杀菌值可以看出,使用活抗原进行肠胃外加强免疫,伴随着口服活抗原给药引起的致敏以及剂量依赖性。在三个月龄以下口服免疫的犊牛中出现了致敏现象(典型的加强反应)。其中一些归因于与沙门氏菌野生菌株的对抗。在一个患有沙门氏菌病的犊牛群中,所有动物都经口服Smd免疫,三个月龄动物的H-凝集素滴度与未发生沙门氏菌病的牛群中的犊牛记录值相近。在口服免疫的条件下,显然没有野生菌株引发强烈抗体形成的作用。