Библиографическое описание:

Нямдорж С., Батбаатар В., Эрдэнэбаатар Ж., Ян Ч. Ц. Кинетики исследования применения вакцины против бруцеллеза скота // Молодой ученый. — 2013. — №5. — С. 818-821.

Бруцеллез, которое вызвано Brucella spp., поражает домашних и дикихживотных по всему миру, а также для людей, которые имеют контакт с инфицированными животными или загрязненных молочных продуктов.

В современнойэпидемиологической ситуации в Монголии не тихий, в частности, бруцеллез нас был широко распространен.

Оценка влияния глазные капли вакцинации (B. бруцеллез Rev-1, Б. выкидыш S-19 вакцин) на бруцеллез в крупного рогатого скота, яков, верблюдов, овец и коз.

Определить иммунологический эффект всех видов животных на посту под кожу инъекции вакцины. Определить иммунологический эффект всех видов животных на пост глазные капли вакцинации. Разработка методологий и руководящих принципов для глазных капель вакцин, таких как доза и соответствующего времени т. д.

Использование вакцины капать в глаза вакцины скота позволяет избежать риска заражения использованием инъекции шприцем, чтобы сделать профилактической меры для скота против бруцеллеза, что ответ на современным требованиям.

Ключевые слова:бруцеллез животных, вакцинация, глазные капли метод.

The Kinetics Research Study of Use of Vaccine Against Brucellosis for Livestock

Nyamdorj S.

Northwest A&F University, People’s Republic of China

Batbaata V.;

Erdenebaatar J.

Research worker of Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Immunology Department of Public Health, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Mongolia

Yang Zheng Qi

Northwest A&F University, People’s Republic of China

The present study was conducted Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Mongoliavaccine to protect livestock from brucellosis (B. melitensis Rev-1, B. abortus S-19vaccine)mainly purposed to be used eye drop method for the Mongolian cattle, yak, camel, sheep and goat. For our research we selected livestock from the Taragt, Baruunbayan-Ulaan,Bayangol, Bat-Olzii soum of Uvurkhangai province, a total of 889 livestocks in 36 herd families, including Mongolian cattle 168, yak 175,camels174, sheep 173 and goat 199, were vaccinated with B. abortus S 19, B. melitensis REV 1. Taking samples from five-kinds livestock (including control group) which have received vaccinationafter 14 daysand monthly for 8 months, totally the9 times samples usefor blood analysis onRBT,SAT,CFT, AGIT andc-ELISAin order to analysis brucellosisantibody.

One year post vaccination, a total number of 45 livestock were challenged by bacteria brucella, which included 9 animals in each kind of livestock. Post challenged 14 days, 30 days and 60 days, one animal in each kind of livestock were slaughtered and organ samples were collected to take the anatomy examination, as well as bacteriological examination.

There is no anyobvious pathological changes in the internal organs as liver, kidney, spleen, lungs and heart of the Mongolian cattle, yak and camel after using by eye dropmethod of B. melitensis REV 1 and B. abortus S 19 group vaccines.

Basing on this study, we concluded that the mucosal immunization route(by eyedrops) was efficient for prophylactics against brucellosis practices in Mongolia. Moreover, the eyedrops route was safe and hadno syndrome or pathologic changes in livestock. Bydrop the of B. abortus S 19, B. melitensis REV 1 vaccines into the eyes of livestockis a safety method recommended by theOIE toprophylaxisof livestock against the brucellosis.

Keyword:Animal brucellosis, vaccination, eye drop method.

Introduction: BRUCELLOSIS is epidemic in Mediterranean countries, Arabia, America and central and eastern area of Asia, and African countries (Felix, 2006).

WHO record, are on yearly basis has documented over 500,000 human brucellosis cases in the world which becoming one critical issue (Felix, 2006).

It reports that brucellosis incidence is one of 1,000,000 population in Syria, Kirgizstan and Mongolia countries where these are more than 500 cases every year. The herders, farmers, veterinary specialists, workers of abattoirs houses and laboratories are infected more by human brucellosis.

Between1980–1990, Mongolian Government organized activities so as to involve livestock in public vaccination, to slaughter infected livestock, to conduct brucellosis in a reveal check-up to test and improve sanitary condition activities as well. On the end of 1990, the incidence of brucellosis cases of animals decreased from 0.93 % to 0.01 % (Ya.Batsuuri, 2006).

But, in 2000, since livestock being privatized, every household owned their livestock, so it became difficult to carry out brucellosis test to every livestock, vaccination activity, to solve infected livestock’s issue so that was the reason for increase in human and animal brucellosis incidence (Ya.Batsuuri, 2006).

According to the WHO comment Mongolian Government had implemented national program called ’’Mongol mal’’ 2004–2012, to save sheep, cow, goat from brucellosis, so that there is decreased the risk of the brucellosis to human being (B.Tsolmon, 2011).

The objective of this study is vaccine to protect animals from brucellosis(B. melitensis Rev-1, B. abortus S-19 vaccine) mainly purposed to be used eye drop method for the Mongolian cattle, yak, camel, sheep and goat. To study vaccinated livestock’s genital, immunization and other organ’s change.

Materials and methods: For our research we selected livestock from the Taragt, Baruunbayan-Ulaan, Bayangol, Bat-Olzii soum of Uvurkhangai province, a total of 36 herd families, a total 889 livestocks were vaccinated. The Research was carried out through questionnaires towards the herders. The families involved in the research were chosen for their interest and will to participate in the research. The serum separated from animals were tested with Rozbengalt method (Bakulov IA 1987, Ts.Ulziitogtokh, 2008) respectively, and then the animals which had a negative result were marked and registered. Each kind of tested animal was divided into 3 groups, including a group inoculated with reduce dose of vaccination by hypodermic injection, a group with a standard level and another group inoculated with reduce does by eye droppings. Also, the control team were inoculated with physiological solution. Taking samples from five-kinds livestock (including control group) which have received vaccination after 14 days and monthly for 8 months, totally the 9 times samples use for blood analysis on RBT,SAT, CFT, AGIT and c-ELISA in order to analysis “brucellosis”antibody (Corbell, J. M.1985. Bakulov IA 1987, Denes, B. 1997, Ts.Ulziitogtokh, 2008). One year post vaccination, a total number of 45 livestock were challenged by bacteria brucella, which included 9 animals in each kind of livestock. 14 days, 30 days, 60 days post challenged, one animal in each kind of livestock were slaughtered and organ samples were collected to take the anatomy examination, as well as bacteriological examination (І.Verbytskyi 2004, Safin MA 2004, BF Bessarabia 2007).

Result and discussion: For sheepstandard dose of vaccine dropped into eyes: total of 41 sheep were included in the study, of which 25 were shown positive reaction after five months and 18 remained so after six months, 10 after seven months and 7 after eight months (41–17.1 %). Injected under skin with reduced dose (diluted vaccine): total of 40 sheep were included in the study, of which 26 were shown positive reaction after five months and 22 remained so after six months, 18 after seven months and 11 after eight months (65–27.5 %). Injected under skin with standard dose: total of 40 sheep were included in the study, of which 27 were shown positive reaction after five months and 24 remained so after six months, 20 after seven months and 17 after eight months (65.9–41.5 %). Therefore, it is evident that animals who were vaccinated with eye-drop vaccine show greater number of antibody than the injected animals by 1.5–2.4 times.

For goats standard dose of vaccine dropped into eyes: total of 52 goats were included in the study, of which175 were shown positive reaction after five months and 15 remained so after six months, 7 after seven months and 6 after eight months (42.5–12.2 %). Injected under skin with reduced dose (diluted vaccine): total of 50 goats were included in the study, of which 29 were shown positive reaction after five months and 27 remained so after six months, 14 after seven months and 11 after eight months (58–22 %). Injected under skin with standard dose: total of 51 goats were included in the study, of which 31 were shown positive reaction after five months and 32 remained so after six months, 17 after seven months and 15 after eight months (63.3–30.6 %). Therefore, it is evident that animals who were vaccinated with eye-drop vaccine show greater number of antibody than the injected animals by 1.4–2.5 times.

For yaks standard dose of vaccine dropped into eyes: total of 42 yaks were included in the study, of which 31 were shown positive reaction after five months and 17 remained so after six months, 8 after seven months and 4 after eight months (77.5–10 %). Injected under skin with reduced dose (diluted vaccine): total of 43 yaks were included in the study, of which 32 were shown positive reaction after five months and 24 remained so after six months, 13 after seven months and 9 after eight months (8–22 %). Injected under skin with standard dose: total of 44 goats were included in the study, of which 38 were shown positive reaction after five months and 24 remained so after six months, 12 after seven months and 11 after eight months (88.4–25.6 %). Therefore, it is evident that animals who were vaccinated with eye-drop vaccine show greater number of antibody than the injected animals by 1.1–2.5 times.

For cattle reduce dose of vaccine dropped into eyes: total of 42 Mongolian cattle were included in the study, of which15 were shown positive reaction after five months and 10 remained so after six months, 4 after seven months and 3 after eight months (55.7–7.3 %). Injected under skin with reduced dose (diluted vaccine): total of 44 Mongolian cattle were included in the study, of which 20 were shown positive reaction after five months and 19 remained so after six months, 9 after seven months and 5 after eight months (47.6–11.9 %). Injected under skin with standard dose: total of 42 Mongolian cattle were included in the study, of which 29 were shown positive reaction after five months and 27 remained so after six months, 14 after seven months and 10 after eight months (63.3–30.6 %). Therefore, it is evident that animals who were vaccinated with eye-drop vaccine show greater number of antibody than the injected animals by 1.9–3.2 times.

For camel standard dose of vaccine dropped into eyes: total of 42 camel were included in the study, of which20 were shown positive reaction after five months and 12 remained so after six months, 6 after seven months and 1 after eight months (47.6–2.4 %). Injected under skin with reduced dose (diluted vaccine): total of 46 camel were included in the study, of which 27 were shown positive reaction after five months and 23 remained so after six months, 7 after seven months and 4 after eight months (58.7–8.7 %). Injected under skin with standard dose: total of 46 camel were included in the study, of which 37 were shown positive reaction after five months and 32 remained so after six months, 27 after seven months and 12 after eight months (82.2–26.7 %). Therefore, it is evident that animals who were vaccinated with eye-drop vaccine show greater number of antibody than the injected animals by 1.7–11.1 times.

One year post vaccination, a total number of 45 livestock were challenged by bacteria brucella, which included 9 animals in each kind of livestock. For sheep, goats, yak, cattle were used as negative control, 11.1 % camel was positive for Elisa assay. 14 days, 30 days, 60 days post challenged, one animal in each kind of livestock were slaughtered and organ samples were collected to take the anatomy examination, as well as bacteriological examination. There is no any obvious pathological changes in the internal organs as liver, kidney, spleen, lungs and heart of the Mongolian goat, sheep cattle, yak and camel after using B. melitensis REV 1 and B. abortus S 19 group vaccine.

Basing on this study, we concluded that the mucosal immunization route (by eye drops) was efficient for prophylactics against brucellosis practices in Mongolia. Moreover, the eyedrops route was safe and no syndrome or pathologic changes in livestock.

Conclusions: It is proven that eyedroping vaccination is better than under skin injection after 14 days and 1–8 months in Mongolia. Notable, the protection rate of eyedroping vaccination was 1.9–3.2 times higher than subcutaneous injection in cattle, 1.7–11.1 times higher than subcutaneous injection in camel, 1.1–2.5 times higher than subcutaneous injection in yak, 1.4–2.5 times higher than subcutaneous injection in goat and 1.5–2.4 times higher than subcutaneous injection in sheep by RBT.

By method of eyedrop vaccination, the humeral immunity in short term was weak which decreased the cross reaction of serology and reduced emergency of the disease by diagnostic leaking.

Vaccination through eyedrop avoided the infection risk by using conventional injection syringe for prophilactic measures, which also meet the standard of ideal vaccination routes.

Reference:

1.         B.Tsolmon, V.Batbaatar, J.Erdenebaatar 2011, Journal of “Mongolian Veterinary”. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. № 4. pp. 12–16.

2.         Bakulov IA 1987.Epizootiology of microbiology with Moscow, «Agropromizdat», pp 414–415 p.

3.         BF Bessarabia,     AA, E. S. Voronin and others, ed. AA Sidorchuk. 2007.Infectious animal diseases / Moscow: pp. 671

4.         Corbell, J. M.       1985. Recent advances in the study of Brucella antigens and their serological cross-reactions. Vet.Bull. 55: pp. 927–942.

5.         Denes, B. 1997. Serological findings obtained in cattle herds immunized with the Brucella melitensis Rev-1 and the B. abortus B19 vaccine in Mongolia. Acta. Vet. Hung. 45: 1.pp. 33–43.

6.         Felix Roth. 2006. Background information for veterinarians, health sector workers and policy makers on the impact of brucellosis in Mongolia, Author. dis. Candidate. med. Science. — Basel, Switzerland, pp.1–30.

7.         І. Verbytskyi, P. P.Dostoєvsky. — K.: «Harvest Dovіdnik lіkarya veterinarny Medicine / P ", 2004. — 80 s.

8.         Ts. Ulziitogtokh. 2008, Instruction of using bio preparation for veterinary. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.pp. 22–25

9.         Safin MA 2004.Workshop on epizootiology and infectious diseases with veterinary sanitation / MA Safin, AA Sidorchuk, VP Urban. — Moscow: colossus,pp. 260

10.     Ya. Batsuuri. 2006. Study of the propagation of some bacterial zoonotic disease in Mongolia and risk analysis. Author. dis. Candidate. med. Science. — Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, pp.15–25.

Обсуждение

Социальные комментарии Cackle