Practical Significance Of Rabies Antibodies In Cats And Dogs
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action"
|
|
Vaccine |
Dogs with antibodies just before challenge
(%) |
Dogs surviving challenge |
|
Experiment 1 |
||
| LEP tissue culture | 88 | 9/10 |
| LEP tissue culture | 73 | 10/10 |
| ERA tissue culture | 73 | 10/10 |
| LEP chicken embryo | 70 | 10/10 |
| HEP tissue culture | 63 | 10/10 |
| CVS adjuvanted | 13 | 7/10 |
| None | 0 | 0/10 |
|
Experiment 2 |
||
| Suckling mouse brain | 95 | 10/10 |
| Suckling mouse brain | 67 | 10/10 |
| None | 0 | 0/10 |
LEP: low egg passage
HEP: high egg passage
ERA: Elizabeth (Gaynor) Rokitniki Abelseth
CVS: challenge virus strain
Table 2
Laboratory dogs: one intramuscular vaccination with various vaccines, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, three years after vaccination (61)
|
Vaccine |
Dogs with antibodies (%) |
Dogs surviving challenge just before
challenge |
|
Experiment 1 |
||
| LEP tissue culture | 87 | 29/30 |
| LEP tissue culture | 69 | 26/29 |
| ERA tissue culture | 57 | 27/30 |
| LEP chicken embryo | 54 | 28/30 |
| Suckling mouse brain | 48 | 27/27 |
| Suckling mouse brain | 67 | 10/10 |
| HEP tissue culture | 42 | 27/29 |
| Suckling mouse brain | 28 | 23/29 |
| CVS adjuvanted | 0 | 17/29 |
| None | 0 | 3/30 |
Results of challenge - Antibodies before challenge
|
Yes |
No | |
| Rabid | 3* | 26 |
| Surviving | 157 | 47 |
* titres of 1/2, 1/3 and 1/5 (end point neutralising dilution of the serum)
Table 3
Laboratory dogs: one vaccination with HEP vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain three years after vaccination (22)
|
Vaccination |
Dogs with detectable antibodies challenge just before
challenge |
Dogs surviving |
|
Intramuscular injection |
||
| Undiluted | 29/30 | 30/30 |
| Diluted 1/10 | 6/10 | 10/10 |
| Diluted 1/100 | 4/10 | 17/29 |
|
Subcutaneous injection |
||
| Undiluted | 4/29 | 17/29 |
| Diluted 1/10 | 0/9 | 2/9 |
| Diluted 1/100 | 0/8 | 2/8 |
| None | 0/30 | 0/30 |
Table 4
Laboratory dogs: subcutaneous vaccination with tissue culture vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, twenty-seven months after vaccine (8)
|
Antigenic value* |
Dogs with detectable antibodies of vaccine 12 months after vaccination |
Dogs surviving challenge |
|
|
Vaccinated |
Controls | ||
| 0.6 | 8/8 | 8/8 | 0/7 |
| 1.7 | 19/20 | 17/18** | 3/12 |
| 2.3 | 6/9 | 8/9*** | 4/12 |
| 4.6 | 10/10 | 9/9 | - |
* measured by the NIH test, expressed in IU/dose
** The dog which died of rabies had always had the lowest antibody titre in the group
*** The dog which died of rabies had never seroconverted
Table 5
Laboratory dogs: subcutaneous vaccination with tissue culture vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, three years after vaccination (52)
|
Vaccination |
Dogs with serum antibodies > 0.5IU/ml just before challenge |
Dogs surviving challenge |
|
|
|
|
Vaccinated |
Controls |
| One injection of adjuvanted vaccine |
29/30 | 29/30 | 0/20 |
Table 6
Laboratory dogs: intramuscular vaccination with tissue culture adjuvanted vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, three years after vaccination (59)
|
Vaccination |
Dogs with detectable antibodies just before challenge |
Dogs surviving challenge |
| Yes | 14/25 | 23/25* |
| No | 0/10 | 2/10 |
* One of the two dogs which died following challenge was seronegative, the other had a titre of 1/4 (endpoint neutralising dilution of the serum)
Table 7
Laboratory dogs: intramuscular vaccination with ERA vaccine, challenge with rabies virus fox strain four or five years after vaccination (44)
|
Vaccination |
Dogs with detectable antibodies just before challenge |
Dogs surviving challenge |
|
Four years before challenge |
|
|
| Yes | 5/10 | 7/10 |
| No | 0/9 | 0/9 |
|
Five years before challenge |
|
|
| Yes | 7/14 | 13/14 |
| No | 0/14 | 5/14 |
Table 8
Laboratory dogs: subcutaneous vaccination with adjuvanted tissue culture vaccine, challenge with rabies virus fox strain, two years after booster vaccination (38)
|
Antigenic value |
Dogs with detectable of vaccine* antibodies just before challenge |
Dogs surviving challenge |
|
|
|
|
Vaccinated |
Controls |
| 4.2 | 9/10** | 10/10 | 0/5 |
* Measured by the NIH test, expressed in IU/dose
** Two dogs with an antibody titre <0.5 IU/ml
Sikes and colleagues (62) employed several types of vaccine on dogs and challenged them one or three years after vaccination (Tables 1 and 2). Sikes (61) commented on the three-year experiment as follows: "In this study, as in many others, presence of neutralising antibodies to rabies at the time of challenge did not indicate protection for all of the animals. Likewise, absence of neutralising antibodies in serum at the time of challenge did not mean the animals were unprotected. However, there was strong statistical significance (P < 0.1) that animals with neutralising antibodies at the time of challenge were better protected than those with no detectable neutralising antibodies."
Sikes employed the NYC-Ga (New York City-Georgia) dog salivary gland strain of rabies virus. The same strain has also been used for challenge in other experiments (Tables 3 to 6) and the results confirm each point of the statements made by Sikes (60) regarding vaccination of dogs:
a dog with neutralising antibodies just before challenge will have the best chance of surviving a severe challenge; a dog with no detectable neutralising antibodies just before challenge will have a high chance of surviving a severe challenge if it seroconverted after vaccination; some dogs will not survive a severe challenge even if they have detectable neutralising antibody titres before challenge; generally these titres are the lowest of the group.
In studies of fox strains of rabies virus (Tables 7 and 8), the possibility of procuring a strong immunity as long as four to five years after vaccination, and of enhancing protection by the use of adjuvanted vaccines, has been demonstrated. These studies also confirmed the correlation between neutralising antibodies and protection against a fox strain.
Bunn and colleagues (28, 29) gathered pre-challenge neutralising antibody titres and challenge results obtained on dogs by the United States National Veterinary Services Laboratories and by vaccine manufacturers. Most of the dogs were challenged with the NYC-Ga strain, but results obtained with fox or skunk strains were also added. Sera were titrated either by the virus neutralisation test in mice (MNT) (5) or the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) (62). Data on neutralising antibodies originally expressed in arithmetical dilutions by Bunn (26, 27) have been converted into IU in Figure 6. Beyond 0.03 IU/ml with the MNT or 0.05 IU/ml with the RFFIT, the expected survival to challenge by a dog strain reaches 95%. With 288 dogs having RFFIT titres above 0.1 IU/ml, a 100% survival rate was obtained. The maximum survival rate observed among animals with the highest neutralising antibody titres measured by MNT was 99.5%.
Fig. 6
Survival rate after challenge of laboratory dogs correlated with the level of rabies antibody reached before challenge
Dogs were vaccinated with various vaccines and challenged one year after vaccination with NYC-Ga, fox or skunk strains; the number of dogs in each class is written at the top of the bars (65)
Given the higher susceptibility of dogs to dog strains (e.g. NYC-Ga), which was proven by cross challenge of dogs with homologous and heterologous (fox) strains (15, 17), the challenge with fox strains could be expected to be less severe. Unfortunately, the data are too scarce to permit a definitive conclusion.
Natural infection of vaccinated dogs
The number of vaccinated dogs which become naturally infected is related to several factors other than vaccine potency, such as probability of encountering an infected animal, severity of bites, health status and immune efficiency of the vaccinated dogs, and host-virus adaptation. Such considerations could explain why vaccinated dogs suffer rabies more often in the course of dog rabies enzootics than during fox rabies enzootics. In Thailand, 9% of the dogs found positive upon laboratory diagnosis had been vaccinated within the previous two years (39). In Nigeria, a survey of 2,500 dogs vaccinated over two years, showed that at least four died of rabies three to eight months after vaccination (1, 2).
The following reasons (16) for the failure of immunity may be suggested:
Whatever the origins of rabies cases recorded in vaccinated dogs, their number seems relatively low in areas contaminated with fox rabies (e.g. in Europe) (20). In France, only ten cases of so-called vaccination failures in dogs (and four among cats) have been registered over a period of twenty-three years (6). This number should be compared with the 4,250,000 cats and dogs vaccinated annually in France (this figure is based on the annual number of vaccine doses sold for domestic carnivores). The probability of a cat or dog becoming rabid if vaccinated can be estimated as 14/(23 x 4,250,000), which is less than 1/6,980,000. In France, dogs in contact with a rabid animal in an enzootic area are not sacrificed and can be kept alive if, prior to contamination, they have been properly vaccinated (with certificate and identification). In such cases, the animals are immediately revaccinated. A study of more than 3,500 dogs which had close contacts (bites in 36% of cases) with foxes (mainly) or other carnivores which were diagnosed as rabid by laboratory examination, revealed that only three dogs developed rabies (50). The failure rate in animals which were definitely contaminated can be estimated as 3/3,500, given that injection of vaccine after contamination has been shown to provide no protection (20). It must be emphasised that these failures were recorded before 1984 and that failure is now less probable, given the generalisation of adjuvanted vaccines for dogs. In the United States of America, four rabies vaccine failures were recorded in cats and dogs in 1988 with 33,182,575 vaccinated domestic carnivores the same year (rate = 1/8,296,000) (34).
Such evaluations could be useful in comparing the risks of vaccination with those of quarantine. For even when they are strictly managed, quarantines still entail a risk. For instance, in many countries, the quarantine period is six months. However, longer incubation periods have been reported in dogs (8.5 months after challenge) (67) and in other carnivores (12 months or more for foxes) (57). According to Sasaki and colleagues (55), Beynon determined that a quarantine period of nine months would be necessary to detect all cases of incubating rabies with a 95% degree of confidence.
3. STUDIES IN CATS
3.1. Neutralising antibodies after vaccination
Although fewer studies have been conducted on vaccination of cats against rabies, several of the characteristics observed in dogs were also observed in cats:
Table 9
Laboratory cats: intramuscular vaccination with various vaccines, challenge with rabies virus fox strain five weeks and four years after vaccination (44)
|
Vaccination |
Cats with detectable antibodies just before challenge |
Cats surviving challenge |
|
Five weeks before challenge |
|
|
| ERA undiluted or diluted 1/10 | 19/19 | 19/19 |
| Inactivated virus vaccine undiluted or diluted 1/10 |
20/20 | 20/20 |
| ERA diluted 1/100 or 1/1000 | 5/20 | 12/20 |
| HEP diluted 1/1000 | 1/40 | 11/40 |
|
Inactivated virus vaccine |
|
|
| diluted 1/1000 | 0/5 | 2/5 |
| None | 0/11 | 3/11 |
|
Four years before challenge |
|
|
| ERA | 7/8 | 8/8 |
| None | 0/8 | 1/10 |
ERA: Elizabeth (Gaynor) Rokitniki Abelseth
HEP: high egg passage
Concerning the influence of age, Précausta and colleagues (53) described the good neutralising antibody response achieved by three-month-old kittens, even those born of immune queens.
To our knowledge, Blancou and colleagues (18, 19) are the only authors who have tested vaccination results on owned cat populations. Pet cats appeared to respond well to the administration of an adjuvanted vaccine. In contrast, the same authors obtained mild or zero neutralising antibody responses when vaccinating cats sampled from stray populations in France. With stray cats, the worst result was obtained with non-adjuvanted vaccines: 5 of 9 individuals did not respond (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7
Influence of the breeding standards of cats on the level of rabies antibody reached one year after vaccination
Comparison of laboratory cats, pet cats in France and stray cats in Tunisia (19)
3.2. Level of neutralising antibodies and result of challenge
Challenge under laboratory conditions
Although there are few field studies on the immunity of pet or stray cat populations, there are numerous laboratory studies on challenge of vaccinated cats (Tables 10 to 12).
Table 10
Laboratory cats: intramuscular vaccination with tissue culture adjuvanted vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, one to three years after vaccination (59)
|
Vaccination |
Cats with detectable antibodies just before challenge |
Cats surviving challenge |
|
One year before challenge |
|
|
| Yes (subcutaneous) | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| No | 0/4 | 0/4 |
|
Three years before challenge |
|
|
| Yes (intramuscular) | 25/25 | 24/25* |
| No | 0/10 | 1/10 |
* Prior to challenge the cat which died of rabies had an antibody titre of 1/2 (endpoint neutralising dilution)
Table 11
Laboratory cats: subcutaneous vaccination with tissue culture vaccine, challenge with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain, 3.4 to 3.7 years after vaccination (64)
|
Vaccination |
Cats with antibodies >0.5 IU/ml 0-6 months before challenge |
Cats surviving challenge |
|
|
|
|
Vaccinated |
Controls |
| Non-adjuvanted vaccine | 8/8 | 8/8 | 0/5 |
| Adjuvanted vaccine | 5/5 | 5/5 | 0/5 |
| Adjuvanted vaccine | 8/11 | 10/10 | 1/10 |
Table 12
Laboratory cats: challenged with rabies virus NYC-Ga strain four to six-and-a-half months after vaccination (42)
|
Vaccination |
Cats with antibodies >0.5 IU/ml just before challenge |
Cats surviving challenge |
|
|
|
|
Vaccinated |
Controls |
|
Inactivated virus in cell culture: |
|
|
|
| antigenic value: 0.9* | 8/8 | 7/8** | |
| antigenic value: 1.8 | 5/8 | 8/8 | 0/16 |
|
Modified live virus: |
|
|
|
| ERA | 2/8 | 3/8*** |
* Measured by the NIH test, expressed in
IU/dose
** The cat which died of rabies had a
pre-challenge titre of 5.34 IU/ml
*** The cats which died
of rabies had the lowest antibody titres
ERA: Elizabeth
(Gaynor) Rokitniki Abelseth
Challenge was performed with a dog strain (NYC-Ga) mimicking the situation of canine street rabies (42, 61, 64) or, in other experiments, a fox strain mimicking the situation of sylvatic fox rabies in continental Europe (38, 44). With both strains, the general conclusion was the same as for dogs: the probability of a cat surviving challenge can be predicted by the level of neutralising antibodies. Of course, unexpected deaths can occur: Kihm and colleagues (42) reported a rabies death in a cat which had a pre-challenge titre of 5.34 IU, and Blancou and colleagues (18) in another cat with a pre-challenge titre of 0.87 IU/ml.
The cumulative challenge results on cats reported by Bunn (26, 27) are described in Figure 8 and Tables 13 and 14. With a neutralising antibody level of more than 0.1 IU (measured by MNT) or more than 0.2 IU (measured by RFFIT), all of the cats survived challenge.
Fig. 8
Survival rate after challenge of laboratory cats correlated with the level of rabies antibody reached before challenge
Cats were vaccinated with various vaccines and challenged one year after vaccination with NYC-Ga, fox or skunk strains; the number of cats in each class is written at the top of the bars (27)
Table 13
Challenge results from rabies immonogenicity tests conducted in dogs and cats with vaccines approved for use in the United States of America (27)
|
Vaccine |
Antibody titre* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<5 |
5-9 |
10-19 |
20-39 |
>40 |
| Flury modified live vaccine | 1/50** | 0/16 | 0/26 | 0/15 | 0/40 |
| SAD modified live vaccine | 5/55 | 3/36 | 1/41 | 0/35 | 1/188 |
| SAD inactivated virus, tissue culture origin | 21/156 | 2/63 | 1/116 | 0/79 | 0/150 |
| Pasteur inactivated virus, tissue culture origin | 5/44 | 1/45 | 0/38 | 0/32 | 0/76 |
| Pasteur inactivated virus, nervous tissue origin | 13/133 | 2/62 | 5/73 | 1/34 | 0/164 |
* antibody titres expressed as 50% endpoint
neutralising dilutions established by either the MNT or RFFIT
** challenge results are expressed as number of animals which died/number
of animals challenged
SAD: Street Alabama Dufferin strain
Table 14
Neutralising antibody titres in dogs and cats and protection from challenge with rabies virus (26)
|
Animals |
Antibody test |
|
|
Antibody titre* |
|
|
|
|
<5 |
5-9 |
10-19 |
20-39 |
>40 | |
| Dogs | MNT | 56/251** | 9/100 | 9/92 | 1/63 | 0/171 |
| RFFIT | 84/241 | 13/112 | 9/119 | 0/87 | 0/201 | |
|
Total |
140/492 |
22/212 |
18/211 |
1/150 |
0/372 | |
| Cats | MNT | 25/155 | 5/57 | 5/94 | 0/33 | 0/144 |
| RFFIT | 17/87 | 3/59 | 1/62 | 1/49 | 1/187 | |
| Total | 42/242 | 8/116 | 6/156 | 1/82 | 1/331 |
* antibody titres expressed as 50% endpoint dilutions established by either the virus neutralisation test in mice (MNT) or the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT)
** challenge results are expressed as number of animals which died/number of animals challenged
Natural infection of vaccinated cats
The safety problem associated with the receptivity of cats to live virus vaccines such as Flury LEP and HEP or Street Alabama Dufferin (SAD) strain vaccines will not be reviewed here (11). But it should be remembered that while cats are the species with the largest number of rabies cases directly induced by the inoculation of live modified virus strains, other species such as dogs and foxes are also receptive (72).
Inactivated virus vaccines are employed on cats as they are more efficient in protecting the species against natural challenge. However, considering the results of challenge experiments on vaccinated cats, natural infection among vaccinated pet cats is suspected to be as frequent as for vaccinated dogs. But investigations on rabies cases in vaccinated cats are scarce: apart from the four cases reported in France (6) there appear to be no other reports. This discrepancy is due to the fact that dogs have been studied considerably more than cats.
4. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NEUTRALISING ANTIBODIES IN NON-VACCINATED CARNIVORES
4.1. Non-specific and specific neutralising factors
Sekine and colleagues (58) found that sera of normal rabbits and guinea-pigs contained non-specific inhibitors capable of neutralising the virus in the presence of complement. In a well-conducted seroneutralisation on mice, therefore, inactivation of sera is performed for 30 minutes at 56°C. Virus inhibition by other substances was described in infected skunks and foxes (74). Infection by mycobacteria, e.g. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), can also induce the production of rabies neutralising antibodies in mice and provide protection against rabies in a number of animals (70). Since more specific immunological tests (such as enzyme-linked immunorescent assay: ELISA) have become widespread, non-specific neutralising factors have not generated further scientific reports.
In endemic areas, serosurveys in wild carnivores demonstrated a high proportion of apparently healthy individuals with neutralising antibodies in serum (54, 71) and it has been suggested that these antibodies may have been produced following contact with virus from other species, which was therefore immunising but rarely fatal (12). However, the same observations have also been reported for dog populations in areas where dog rabies is endemic: in Thailand, in areas where no canine vaccination programme has ever been conducted, 15-20% of dogs had neutralising antibodies, yet remained perfectly normal when observed for prolonged periods (75); similar results had also been reported previously in other countries of Asia and in Africa (3, 36). These observations correlate with the high probability of inter-individual contamination within the reservoir species, which is not the case for pet populations in areas where rabies is endemic. The possibility of non-fatal contamination of dogs by non-canine strains (e.g. those from wild animals living in the region) has also been proposed (20). Several questions thus arise regarding:
4.2. Rabies infections
The viral infection triggers the production of neutralising antibodies. When a high dose of rabies virus reaches the central nervous system, neutralising antibodies are not detectable before or at the onset of clinical signs; they are usually induced by longer incubation periods. This phenomenon has been studied mainly in laboratory rodents, which supply the chief model of rabies immunopathology (49, 73). Unfortunately (but not surprisingly, considering the difficulty of handling rabid carnivores), there appears to be no literature on the frequency and intensity of neutralising antibody production in non-vaccinated infected cats and dogs. Some data can be found in articles by Artois and colleagues (4), Blancou and colleagues (17) and Fekadu (36) regarding latent or abortive rabies.
Bell and colleagues (10) proved that dogs which recovered from rabies after intracerebral inoculation of homologous strains, had high titres of neutralising antibody in the cerebrospinal fluid as well as in serum and retained these titres for several months, whereas vaccinated dogs did not have high cerebrospinal fluid titres. Murphy and colleagues (48) demonstrated the same phenomenon in cats.
Bell and colleagues (9) were the first to apply cerebrospinal fluid titration for an epidemiological survey. Of 120 dogs sampled in an area where rabies was enzootic (Buenos Aires), none was found to be positive; thus, it cannot be concluded that non-fatal rabies is common.
Blenden and colleagues (21) have suggested that the kinetics of antibody levels in blood and cerebrospinal fluid should be compared, to determine whether specific antibodies have been produced by infection or by immunisation. Without a booster after a first blood and cerebrospinal sampling, the antibody level should remain stable in cases of immunisation, or increase in cases of infection. In fact, such procedures have never been routinely used anywhere. Indeed, given the variability of the titration test, the constancy of an antibody titre over time is difficult to verify even in a vaccinated animal.
Given the lack of easily-performed experimental methods, the only basis for considering that an individual dog or cat possessing rabies neutralising antibodies has been vaccinated is good individual identification and certification.
5. DISCUSSION
Laboratory conditions described in the challenge of vaccinated cats and dogs generally appear more severe than natural conditions of challenge in the field. In normal practice, experimenters use extremely long intervals between vaccination and challenge (three to five years) and high virus doses involving 100% mortality in controls. In areas contaminated by fox rabies, natural challenge is not as severe for dogs and this could compensate for the fact that the health status of pets may be lower than that of dogs bred in the laboratory. Epidemiological observation is by far the more important evidence; in continental Europe, rabies vaccination of cats and dogs is so efficient that where the annual risk of a fatal case of rabies has been evaluated for a vaccinated pet, this risk is minute (1/6,980,000). It is also noteworthy that in continental Europe, fox rabies has never been propagated by domestic animals from an enzootic area to a free one - even if administrative rules concerning compulsory confinment, leashing or vaccination have sometimes been broken either deliberately or by the simple fact that rabid pets have escaped from their owners.
If a neutralising antibody titration were required for certifying the immunological capacity of vaccinated animals, two questions would arise regarding:
A general analysis of challenge experiments leads to the conclusion that neutralising antibody titres enable prediction of survival more often on a qualitative basis (i.e. Do the animals have detectable neutralising antibodies or not?) than on a quantitative basis. This fact becomes apparent when one tries to determine a "protective" threshold. For this purpose, either method of seroneutralisation (RFFIT or MNT) can be employed, provided a correlation between the two methods has been demonstrated in the same laboratory (14, 66).
Agreements on the international transfer of dogs and cats could be formulated, therefore, based on a designated minimum level of neutralising antibodies, and could be proposed as an alternative to quarantine measures. The designated threshold could be based on the results presented in this study. The security of the protection constituted by this threshold would be increased by the extent to which it excedes the level recognised as effective against experimental challenge in cats and dogs (0.1 IU/ml and 0.2 IU/ml, respectively, measured by RFFIT).
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr J. Blancou for kindly revising the manuscript of this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Aghomo H.O. & Rupprecht C.E. (1990). - Antigenic characterisation of virus isolates from vaccinated dogs dying of rabies. Trop. Anim. Hlth Prod., 22, 275-280.
2. Aghomo H.O. & Rupprecht C.E. (1990). - Further studies on rabies virus isolated from healthy dogs in Nigeria. Vet. Microbiol., 22, 17-22.
3. Andral L. & Serie C. (1965). - Etude expérimentale sur la rage en Ethiopie. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 108, 442-450.
4. Artois M., Aubert M.F.A., Blancou J. & Pericard M. (1984). - Rage expérimentale du chat : sensibilité - symptômes - excrétion du virus. Rev. Méd. Vét., 135 (5), 281-287.
5. Atanasiu P. (1973). - Quantitative assay and potency test of antirabies serum and immunoglobulin. In Laboratory technique in rabies, 3rd Ed. WHO, Geneva, 314-318.
6. Aubert M.F.A. & Barrat J. (1991). - Les échecs de vaccinations chez les animaux domestiques. Bull. Epidémiol. Mensuel Rage Anim. France, 21 (5), 1.
7. Barth R. & Jaeger O. (1977). - Zur Prüfung der Immunitäts Dauer von Tollwutkombinationsvaccinen am Hund. Die blauen Hefte für den Tierarzt, 57, 337-346.
8. Barth R., Gruschkau H. & Jaeger O. (1985). - Chick embryo cell inactivated rabies vaccine for veterinary use. Laboratory and field experience. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, H. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 241-248.
9. Bell J.F., Gonzalez A.M., Diaz B. & Moore G.J. (1971). - Nonfatal rabies in dogs. Experimental studies and results of a survey. Am. J. Vet. Res., 32 (12), 2049-2058.
10. Bell J.F., Sancho M.I., Diaz A.M. & Moore G.J. (1972). - Nonfatal rabies in an enzootic area. Results of a survey and evaluation of techniques. Am. J. Epidemiol., 95 (2), 190-198.
11. Bellinger D.A., Chang J., Bunn T.O., Pick J.R., Murphy M. & Rahija R. (1983). - Rabies induced in a cat by high-egg passage Flury strain vaccine. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 183, 997.
12. Blancou J. (1988). - Ecology and epidemiology of fox rabies. Rev. Infect. Dis., 10 (Suppl. 4), S606-S609.
13. Blancou J., Aubert M.F.A., Toma B. & Andral L. (1980). - Immunité humorale du chien après primovaccination contre la rage : étude dans les conditions de la pratique. Recl Méd. Vét., 150 (4), 313-318.
14. Blancou J., Aubert M.F.A. & Cain E. (1983). - Comparaison de quatre techniques de titrages sérologiques des anticorps contre le virus de la rage chez le chien. J. Biol. Standard, 11, 271-277.
15. Blancou J., Aubert M.F.A. & Soulebot J.P. (1983). - Différences dans le pouvoir pathogène de souches de virus rabique adaptées au renard ou au chien. Ann. Inst. Pasteur Virol., 134E, 523-531.
16. Blancou J., Firon J.P. & Firon P.E. (1983). - Défaut de réaction immunitaire du chien après vaccination contre la rage. Etude d'un cas. Conséquence. Rec. Méd. Vét., 159 (10), 789-793.
17. Blancou J., Aubert M.F.A. & Perrin G. (1985). - Rage expérimentale du chien. Sensibilité, symptômes, excrétion du virus. Réaction immunitaire et résistance trois ans après vaccination. Rev. Méd. Vét., 136 (2), 147-152.
18. Blancou J., Artois M., Barrat J. & Prave M. (1986). - Vaccination du chat contre la rage : taux d'anticorps et résistance à l'épreuve un an après vaccination. Rev. Méd. Vét., 137 (17), 29-36.
19. Blancou J., Aubert M.F.A., Prave M. & Haddad N. (1986). - Influence du statut sanitaire des carnivores sur leur capacité à s'immuniser contre la rage. Sci. Tech. Anim. Lab., 11 (3), 237-242.
20. Blancou J., Soria Baltazar R., Artois M., Toma B. & Rollin P. (1989). - Rabies despite pre- or post-exposure vaccination. In Progress in rabies control (O. Thraenart, H. Koprowski, K. Bögel & P. Sureau, eds). Wells Medical, Kent, 441-447.
21. Blenden C.D., Torres Anjel M.J. & Satalowitch F.T. (1985). - Applications of laboratory technology in the evaluation of the risk of rabies transmissions by biting dogs and cats. Adv. Anim. Welfare Sci., 221-246.
22. Brown A.L., Merry D.L. & Beckenhauer W.H. (1973). - Modified live-virus rabies vaccine produced from Flury high egg-passage virus grown on an established canine-kidney cell line: three-year duration-of-immunity study in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res., 34 (11), 1427-1432.
23. Brun A., Chappuis G., Precausta P. & Terre J. (1976). - Immunisation des chats contre la panleucopénie et la rage. Rev. Méd. Vét., 127 (11), 1575-1580.
24. Bunn T.O. (1983). - Rabies vaccine for use in dogs. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, M. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 262-273.
25. Bunn T.O. (1985). - Rabies vaccine for use in dogs. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, M. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 221-226.
26. Bunn T.O. (1991). - Cat rabies. In The natural history of rabies, 2nd Ed. (G. Baer, ed.). CRC Press, 379-387.
27. Bunn T.O. (1991). - Canine and feline vaccines, past and present. In The natural history of rabies, 2nd Ed. (G. Baer, ed.). CRC Press, 415-425.
28. Bunn T.O. & Ridpath M.D. (1983). - The relationship between rabies antibody titers in dogs and protection from challenge. Rabies Info. Exch., 8, 43-45.
29. Bunn T.O., Ridpath H.D. & Beard P.D. (1984). - The relationship between rabies antibody titers in dogs and cats and protection from challenge. Rabies Info. Exch., 11, 8-13.
30. Chappuis G. & Tixier G. (1982). - Etude de la relation existant entre le titre NIH et les anticorps séroneutralisants obtenus après vaccination chez les chiens. Comp. Immun. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 5 (1-3), 151157.
31. Chomel B., Chappuis G., Bullon F., Cardenas E., de Beublain T.D., Maufrais M.C. & Giambruno E. (1987). - Serological results of a dog vaccination campaign against rabies in Peru. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 6 (1), 97113.
32. Dean D.J., Evans W.M. & Thompson W.R. (1964). - Studies on the low egg passage Flury strain of modified live rabies virus produced in embryonating eggs and tissue culture. Am. J. Vet. Res., 25 756-763.
33. Derbyshire J.B. & Matthews K.A. (1984). - Rabies antibody titres in vaccinated dogs. Can. Vet. J., 25, 383-385.
34. Eng T.R. & Fishbein D.B. (1990). - Epidemiological factors, clinical findings and vaccination status of rabies in cats and dogs in the United States in 1988. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 197 (2), 201-209.
35. Engels M., Fluckiger M., Knusli K. & Wyler R. (1982). - Der Immunstatus gegen Tollwut bei 200 geimpften Hunden aus dem Kanton Zurich. Schweizer Arch. Tierheilk., 124, 149-156.
36. Fekadu M. (1991). - Latency and aborted rabies. In The natural history of rabies, 2nd Ed. (G. Baer, ed.). CRC Press, 191-198.
37. Fuenzalida E. (1967). - Estado actual de desarrollo de la vacuna antirrábica preparada de cerebros de ratones lactantes en Latinoamérica. In First International Seminar on Rabies, Buenos Aires, 417.
38. Ganière J.P., André-Fontaine G., Blancou J., Artois M. & Aubert A. (1989). - Vaccination antirabique du chien et du chat : taux d'anticorps et résistance à l'épreuve virulente deux ans après l'injection de rappel d'un vaccin additionné d'adjuvant. Rev. Méd. Vét., 140 (4), 281-285.
39. Hemachudha T. (1989). - Rabies. In Handbook of clinical neurology. Viral diseases (P.J. Vinken, G.W. Bruyn & H.L. Klawans, eds). Elsevier, 383-404.
40. Hirayama N., Raharjo Jusa E., Aeny Rochman Noor M., Sakaki K. & Ogata M. (1990). - Immune state of dogs injected with rabies vaccines in the West Java, Indonesia. Jpn. J. Vet. Sci., 52 (5), 1099-1101.
41. Kaeberlee M.L. (1958). - Newer tools for the prevention of rabies in domestic animals. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 70 (3), 467-477.
42. Kihm U., Lazarowicz M., Bommeli W. & Zutter R. (1982). - Potency of two rabies vaccines in cats as determined by antibody assay and virulent virus challenge. Comp. Immun. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 5 (1-3), 227-232.
43. Koutchoukali M.A., Blancou J., Chappuis G., Tixier G., Eloit M., Ganière J.P., Chantal J., Simon S., Berthier A. & Toma B. (1985). - Réponse sérologique du chien après primovaccination antirabique à l'aide de vaccins adjuvés ou non. Ann. Rech. Vét., 16, 345-349.
44. Lawson K.F. & Crawley J.F. (1972). - The ERA strain of rabies vaccine. Rev. Can. Méd. Comp., 36, 339-344.
45. Lazarowicz M., Kihm V., Bommeli W. & Zutter R. (1982). - Potency testing of inactivated rabies vaccines in mice, dogs and cats. Comp. Immun. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 5 (1-3), 233-235.
46. Merry D.L., Brown A.L. & Beckenhauer W.H. (1970). - Subcutaneous vs. intramuscular inoculation of dogs. Vet. Bull., 40, 190.
47. Merry D.L. & Kolar J.R. (1984). - A comparative study of four rabies vaccines. Vet. Med. Small Anim. Clin., 79 (5), 661-664.
48. Murphy A.F., Bell F.J., Bauer S.D., Gardner J.J., Moore G.J., Harrison A.K. & Coe E.J. (1980). - Experimental chronic-rabies in the cat. 43 (3), 231-241.
49. Nathanson N. & Gonzales Scarano F. (1991). - Immune response to rabies virus. In The natural history of rabies, 2nd Ed. (G. Baer, ed.). CRC Press, 145-161.
50. Prave M. (1985). - Mesures conservatoires légales appliquées aux animaux contaminés de rage en France. Bilan après 8 ans (1976-1984). In Pasteur et la rage (R. Rosset, ed.). Infos Tech. Serv. Vét., 92-95, 264S-269S.
51. Precausta P. (1972). - Vaccin antirabique inactivé à usage vétérinaire préparé à partir de culture cellulaire. Symp. Ser. Immunobiol. Stand., 21, 162-178.
52. Precausta P., Soulebot J.P., Bugand M., Brun A. & Chappuis G. (1982). - Modalités de production et immunité conférée par un vaccin antirabique inactivé provenant de culture cellulaire. Comp. Immun. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 5, 217-226.
53. Precausta P., Soulebot J.P., Chappuis G., Brun A., Bugand M. & Petermann M.G. (1985). - Nil cell inactivated tissue culture vaccine against rabies. Immunisation of Carnivores. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, H. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 227-240.
54. Rosatte R.C. & Gunson J.R. (1984). - Presence of neutralizing antibodies to rabies virus in striped skunks from areas free of skunk rabies in Alberta. J. Wildl. Dis., 20 (3), 171-176.
55. Sasaki D.M. & Gooch J.M. (1983). - Cost effectiveness of Hawaii's anti-rabies quarantine program. Hawaii Med. J., 42, 157-160.
56. Sasaki D.M. & Gooch J.M. (1992). - Rabies serosurvey of quarantine pets and mongooses. Report presented to the 16th State Legislature, 75pp.
57. Schmidt R.C. & Sikes R.K. (1968). - Immunisation of foxes with inactivated-virus rabies vaccine. Am. J. Vet. Res., 29 (9), 1843-1849.
58. Sekine N. & Yoshino K. (1974). - Inhibitors against rabies virus present in normal rabbit sera. Arch. Ges. Virusforsch., 45, 89-98.
59. Sharpee R.L., Nelson L.O. & Beckenhauer W.H. (1985). - Inactivated tissue culture rabies vaccine with three years immunogenicity in dogs and cats. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, H. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 262-273.
60. Sikes R.K. (1971). - Evaluation of canine rabies vaccine. In Rabies (Y. Nagano & F.M. Davenport, eds). University Park Press, Baltimore, London & Tokyo, 343-361.
61. Sikes R.K., Peacock G.V., Acha P.L., Arko R.J. & Dierks R. (1971). - Rabies vaccines: duration of immunity. Study in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Ass., 1491-1499.
62. Smith J.S., Yager P.A. & Baer G.M. (1973). - A rapid reproducible test for determining rabies neutralizing antibody. Bull. Wld Hlth Org., 48, 535-541.
63. Soulebot J.P., Stellmann Ch., Bornarel P., Petermann H.G., Lang R. & Branche R. (1970). - Influence de la voie d'inoculation des vaccins antirabiques chez le chien. Bull. Soc. Sci. Vét. Méd., 72, 409-417.
64. Soulebot J.P., Brun A., Chappuis G., Guillemin F., Petermann H.G., Precausta P. & Terre J. (1981). - Experimental rabies in cats: immune response and persistence of immunity. Cornell Vet., 71 (3), 311-325.
65. Teepsumethanon W., Polsuwan C., Lumlertdaecha B., Khawplod P., Hemachudha T., Chutivonsge S., Wilde H., Chiewbamrungkiat M. & Phanuphak P. (1991). - Immune response to rabies vaccine in Thai dogs: a preliminary report. Vaccine, 9, 627-630.
66. Thraenart O., Ramakrishnan K., Jäger O. & Marcus I. (1989). - Antibody induction determined by the mouse neutralization test, rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test, and Essen-enzyme linked immunoadsorbent assay is correlated. In Progress in Rabies Control (O. Thraenart, H. Koprowski, K. Bögel & P. Sureau, eds). Wells Medical, Kent, 384-402.
67. Tierkel E.S., Koprowski H., Black J. & Gorrie R.H. (1949). - Preliminary observations in the comparative prophylactic vaccination of dogs against rabies with living virus vaccines and phenolized vaccine. Am. J. Vet. Res., 10, 361.
68. Toma B., Koutchoukali M.A., Blancou J., Chappuis G., Tixier G. & Eloit M. (1985). - Vaccination of dogs against rabies. Comparison of serological responses one year after intradermal or subcutaneous vaccination. In Rabies in the tropics (E. Kuwert, C. Mérieux, H. Koprowski & K. Bögel, eds). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 255-261.
69. Toma B., Koutchoukali M.A., Blancou J., Eloit M., Ganiere J.P. & Chantal J. (1987). - Vaccination antirabique du chien : réponse sérologique comparée un an après premier rappel à l'aide de vaccin contenant un adjuvant. Rev. Méd. Vét., 138, 905-911.
70. Tsiang H., Blancou J. & Lagrange P.H. (1981). - BCG modulation of delayed type hepersensitivity, humoral response and acquired resistance after rabies vaccination. Arch. Virol., 69, 167-176.
71. Wandeler A., Wachendorfer G., Forster U., Krekel H., Muller J. & Steck F. (1974). - Rabies in wild carnivores in Central Europe. Zentbl. VetMed., B, 21, 757-764.
72. Whetsone C.A., Bunn T.O., Emmons R.W. & Wiktor T.J. (1984). - Use of monoclonal antibodies to confirm vaccine-induced rabies in ten dogs, two cats and one fox. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 185, 285.
73. Wiktor T.J. (1978). - Cell mediated immunity and post exposure protection from rabies by inactivated vaccines of tissue culture origin. Dev. Biol. Stand., 40, 255-264.
74. Wilsnack R.E. & Parker R.I. (1966). - Pathogenesis of skunk rabies virus: rabies inhibiting substance as related to rabies diagnosis. Am. J. Vet. Res., 27 (116), 39-43.
75. Yasmuth C., Nelson K.E., Laima T., Supawadee J. & Thaiyanant P. (1983). - Prevalence of abortive canine rabies in Chiang Mai, Thailand. J. Med. Ass. Thai., 66, 169-175.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Peter and Kris Christine in allowing me to share this information with all visitors to my site.
[ Home
] [ Up
]
[ Vaccine Info ]
[ Dot Sweeney ]
[ Others ] [ Fort
Dodge ]
[ Fort
Dodge Final Comment ] [
Fort Dodge - The Saga Contniues ]
[ Uk
Vet Speak Out ] [ Dr Nick Thompson
]
[ Zebedee's Story
] [ Thomas's Story
] [ Polly's Story ]
Britfeld is
a trademark of Svetlana Sally Johnston
|
|
This site is best
viewed with 800 X 600 resolution or
higher, |