Veterinary Research Forum
Vet Res Forum

Efficacy of inactivated Parapoxvirus ovis paraimmune activator as a prophylaxis against mastitis and therapy for subclinical mastitis in dairy cattle

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Tuğçe Demirlek 1
Ahmet Sabuncu 2
Sinem Özlem Enginler 2
Baran Çelik 3
Ömür Koçak 4

1 The Institute of Medical Sciences, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

3 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

4 Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2019.110810.2628
Abstract
Mastitis is the most important disease in dairy cattle industry because of its high economic losses both in herd management, milk and milk products. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of inactivated Parapoxvirus ovis (IPPVO) Para immune activator as a prophylaxis against mastitis and as the therapy for subclinical mastitis in dairy cattle. The prophylactic effects of IPPVO were investigated in California mastitis test (CMT). Healthy Holstein cows were divided into A1 (n = 30) and A2 (n = 30) subgroups. In addition, 90 subclinical mastitis Holstein cows were divided into subgroups of B1, B2, and B3 to investigate the efficacy of IPPVO treatment. A significant difference in CMT levels was observed (p ˂ 0.01) 30 day after treatment in A groups. The difference in somatic cell count (SCC) levels between the A groups 15, 30 day after treatment was significant (p ˂ 0.01). The results of the CMT among the B groups showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). The results of the SCC tests showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) among the B groups on days 0, 9 and 15 after treatment. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n = 53) and Escherichia coli (n = 30) were the most prevalent bacteria isolated in this study. In conclusion, IPPVO, although had no additional effect when used in combination with antibiotics could possibly be used instead of antibiotics and to protect cattle from subclinical mastitis, however, it is not known how long this prophylaxis effect could last.

Keywords

Cow
Immunity
Immunostimulant
Mastitis
  1. Dohoo IR, Meek AH. Somatic cell counts in bovine milk. Can Vet J 1982; 23(4): 119-125.
  2. Baydan E, Salmanoğlu B, Vural R, et al. Effects of levamisole on some blood values ​​in cows with subclinical mastitis [Turkish]. Turk Vet Hekim Derg 1995; 8(3): 53-56.
  3. Watson DL, McColl ML, Davies HI. Field trial of a staphylococcal mastitis vaccine in dairy herds: clinical, subclinical and microbiological assessments. Aust Vet J 1996; 74(6): 447-450.
  4. Jain NC. Common mammary pathogens and factors in infection and mastitis. J Dairy Sci 1979; 62(1): 128-134.
  5. Aydın F, Leloğlu N, Şahin M, et al. Investigations on identification and antibiotic susceptibility of microorganisms which cause clinical and subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Kars region [Turkish]. Pendik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg 1995; 26(1): 55-65.
  6. Coşkun D. Veterinary supportive therapy: Tarantula cubensis alcoholic extract, inactived Parapoxvirus Ovis and Corynebacterium Cutis lysate [Turkish]. Dicle Üniv Vet Fak Derg 2017; 10(1): 30-37.
  7. Blecha F. Immunomodulation: a means of disease prevention in stressed livestock. J Anim Sci 1988; 66(8): 2084-2090.
  8. Abu-El-Saad AA, Abdel-Moneim AS. Modulation of macrophage functions by sheep pox virus provides clues to understand interaction of the virus with host immune system. Virol J 2005; 2 22. doi:10.1186/1743-422X-2-22.
  9. Schütze N, Raue R, Büttner M, et al. Inactivated Parapoxvirus ovis activates canine blood phagocytes and T lymphocytes. Vet Microbiol 2009; 137, 260-267.
  10. Friebe A, Siegling A, Friedrichs S, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of inactivated Parapoxvirus ovis (Orf virus) on human peripheral immune cells: induction of cytokine secretion in monocytes and Th1-like cells. J Virol 2004; 78(17): 9400-9411.
  11. Zecconi A, Bronzo V, Casula A, et al. Efficacy of a biological response modifier in preventing Staphylococcus aureus intramammary infections after calving. J Dairy Sci 1999; 82(10): 2101-2107.
  12. Kart A, Uzlu E, Karapehlivan M, et al. Effect of immunomodulator zylexis on blood glutathione, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, total and lipid bound sialic acids levels in calves [Turkish]. Ataturk Univ Vet. 2010; 5(2): 143-148.
  13. Quinn PJ, Markey BK, Leonard FC, et al. Veterinary microbiology and microbial disease. 2nd ed New Jersey, UK: Wiley-Blackwell 2011; 9-58.
  14. Markey B, Leonard F, Archambault M, et al. Clinical veterinary microbiology. 2nd London UK: Mosby Elsevier, 2013; 920-972
  15. Clinical laboratory standards institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; Approved Standard. Wayne, PA: CLSI, CLSI document VET01-A4. 2013.
  16. Aydın N, İşcan D. The importance of fosssomatic application in somatic cell count of milk samples from dairy cattle found in official and private plants in Ankara province [Turkish]. Etlik Vet Microb Derg 1995; 8(1): 147-162.
  17. Baştan A. İneklerde Meme Hastalıkları (Udder diseases in cows). 2nd Ankara, Turkey: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi 2007; 193.
  18. Brock JH, Steel ED, Reiter B. The effect of intramuscular and intramammary vaccination of cows on antibody levels and resistance to intramammary infection by Staphylococcus aureus. Res Vet Sci 1975; 19(2): 152-158.
  19. Alaçam E.: Meme Hastalıkları. In: Alaçam E, Şahal M (Eds). Sığır Hastalıkları (Cattle Diseases). Ankara, Turkey: Medisan 1997; 389-420.
  20. Hoedemaker M, Korff B, Edler B, et al. Dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus infections during vaccinations with an autogenous bacterin in dairy cattle. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health 2001; 48(5): 373- 383.
  21. Keskin A. Prophylactic effect of vaccination with hypramastivac against mastitis in dairy cattle farms in Bursa region [Turkish]. PhD Thesis. Uludag University Science Institution. Bursa, Turkey: 2005.
  22. Jones GM, Bailey, Jr. TL. Understanding the basics of mastitis. Virginia cooperative extension publication 404-233. 2009; 1-5.
  23. Rysánek D, Babák V, Sládek Z, et al. Variations among unbred heifers in the activities of polymorphonuclear leucocytes from the mammary gland and blood. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2001; 48(1): 31-41.
  24. Paape M, Mehrzad J, Zhao X, et al. Defense of the bovine mammary gland by polymorphonuclear neutrophil leukocytes. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2002; 7(2): 109-121.
  25. Diker KS. Immunology [Turkish]. Ankara, Turkey: Medisan Yayınevi; 1998; 304.
  26. Philpot WN, Nickerson SC. Winning the fight against mastitis. Npeerille, USA: Babbson Bros, 1991; 150.
  27. Harmon RJ. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77(7): 2103-2112.
  28. Atasever S, Erdem H. Relationships between mastitis and electrical conductivity of raw milk in dairy cows [Turkish]. Omü Zir Fak Dergisi2008; 23(2): 131-136.
  29. Küplülü Ş, Vural R, İzgür H, et al. The use of milk checker in detecting subclinical mastitis [Turkish]. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg 1995; 42: 281-284.
  30. Timurkan H. Comparison of California mastitis test and electrical conductivity of milk in dairy cows [Turkish]. F Ü Sağ Bil Vet Derg 2014; 28(3): 135-136.
  31. Todhunter DA, Smith KL, Hogan JS. Environmental streptococcal intramammary infections of the bovine mammary gland. J Dairy Sci 1995; 78(11): 2366-2374.
  32. Batu A. Mammary diseases and mastitis in animals [Turkish]. 2nd İstanbul, Turkey: Kuşak Ofset 1991; 120.
  33. Persson Y, Nyman AK, Grönlund-Andersson U. Etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens from cases of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand 2011; 53(1): 36. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-53-36.
  34. Rişvanlı A. Distribution of clinical and subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Elazig region, isolation of microorganisms that cause mastitis and their susceptibility to antibiotics [Turkish]. PhD Thesis, Fırat University Science Institution. Elazıg, Turkey: 2001.
  35. Pyörälä S, Taponen S. Coagulase-negative staphylo-cocci-emerging mastitis pathogens. Vet Microbiol 2009; 134(1-2): 3-8.
  36. Botrel MA, Haenni M, Morignat E, et al. Distribution and antimicrobial resistance of clinical and subclinical mastitis pathogens in dairy cows in Rhône-Alpes, France. Foodborne. Pathog Dis 2010; 7(5): 479-487.
  37. Pitkälä A, Haveri M, Pyörälä S, et al. Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001-Prevalence, distribution of bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance. J Dairy Sci 2004; 87(8): 2433-2441.
  38. Sağlam AG, Otlu S, Çoșkun MR, et al. Prevalence of subclinical mastitis in cows, isolation of agents and determination of their antibiotic susceptibility. Eurasian J Vet Sci 2018; 34(2): 92-98.
  39. Singh K, Chandra M, Kaur G, et al. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance pattern among the mastitis causing microorganisms. Open J Vet Med 2018; 8: 54-64.
  40. Vásquez-García A, Silva TS, Almeida-Queiroz SR, et al. Species identification and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of bacteria causing subclinical mastitis in buffalo. Pesqui Vet Bras 2017; 37(5): 447-452.
  41. Cuong NV, Padungtod P, Thwaites G, et al. Antimicrobial usage in animal production: a review of the literature with a focus on low-and middle-income countries. Antibiotics (Basel) 2018; 7(3): 75. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics7030075.
  42. Hendriksen RS, Mevius DJ, Schroeter A, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens isolated from cattle in different European countries: 2002-2004. Acta Vet Scand 2008; 50(1): 28. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-28.
Veterinary Research Forum
Volume 12, Issue 4
Autumn 2021
Pages 421-427

  • Receive Date 06 July 2019
  • Revise Date 27 November 2019
  • Accept Date 09 December 2019

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us