Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Pregnant Guinea Pig Model for Testing Efficacy of Campylobacter fetus Vaccines
- Journal:
- American Journal of Veterinary Research
- Year:
- 1978
- Authors:
- Bryner, J. H. et al.
- Affiliation:
- From the National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Ames, IA 50010.
- Species:
- rodent
Abstract
SUMMARY Pregnant guinea pigs were used in lieu of pregnant sheep to evaluate the efficacy of Campylobacter fetus bacterins. The 50% end point minimum abortive dose (mad50) was determined for C fetus subspecies jejuni serotype C (Berg) strain 917–958. For vaccine evaluation, the optimum challenge dose was determined by intraperitoneal inoculation of vaccinated guinea pigs with 1 mad50, 10 mad50, and 100 mad50 doses per animal. When the protection afforded by an experimental vaccine was evaluated, 100 mad50 doses appeared to be satisfactory. Experimental vaccine containing C fetus serotype C and Freund's adjuvant protected 100% of the guinea pigs challenge exposed with 1 and 10 mad50 doses and 80% against challenge exposure with 100 mad50 doses. A commercially prepared vaccine containing C fetus serotype C and A protected only 16% against abortion when 100 mad50 doses were used as the challenge. There are advantages in using pregnant guinea pigs as the model for evaluating C fetus vaccines rather than the primary host. Guinea pigs are very susceptible to C fetus infection and can be protected against substantial challenge exposure with a given C fetus serotype. Thus, because of the ease of pregnancy diagnosis after 15 days and the short gestation in the guinea pigs the evaluation of a bacterin can be completed within 60 days; in sheep, evaluation period would be 1 year. However, the association of efficacy between guinea pigs and sheep must still be made.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.1978.39.01.119