1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences
  4. Volume 4, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Animal Biosciences

Volume 4, 2016

Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle: Vaccines, DIVA Tests, and Host Biomarker Discovery*

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis remains a major economic and animal welfare concern worldwide. Cattle vaccination is being considered as part of control strategies. This approach, used alongside conventional control policies, also requires the development of vaccine-compatible diagnostic assays to distinguish vaccinated from infected animals (DIVA). We discuss progress made on optimizing the only potentially available vaccine, bacille Calmette Guérin (BCG), and on strategies to improve BCG efficacy. We also describe recent advances in DIVA development based on the detection of host cellular immune responses by blood-testing or skin-testing approaches. Finally, to accelerate vaccine development, definition of host biomarkers that provide meaningful stage-gating criteria to select vaccine candidates for further testing is highly desirable. Some progress has also been made in this area of research, and we summarize studies that defined either markers predicting vaccine success or markers that correlate with disease stage or severity.

Keyword(s): cattle, correlates of protection, differential diagnosis, tuberculosis, vaccination
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311
2016-02-15
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/animal/4/1/annurev-animal-021815-111311.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Rodriguez-Campos S, Smith NH, Boniotti MB, Aranaz A. 1.  2014. Overview and phylogeny of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex organisms: implications for diagnostics and legislation of bovine tuberculosis. Res. Vet. Sci. 97:S5–S19 [Google Scholar]
  2. Loeffler SH, de Lisle GH, Neill MA, Collins DM, Price-Carter M, Buddle BM. 2.  2014. The seal tuberculosis agent, Mycobacterium pinnipedii, infects domestic cattle in New Zealand: epidemiologic factors and DNA strain typing. Wildl. Dis. 50:180–87 [Google Scholar]
  3. Roswurm JD, Ranney AF. 3.  1973. Sharpening the attack on bovine tuberculosis. Am. J. Public Health 63:884–86 [Google Scholar]
  4. Waters WR, Palmer MV, Buddle BM, Vordermeier HM. 4.  2012. Bovine tuberculosis vaccine research: historical perspectives and recent advances. Vaccine 30:2611–22 [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff 2014. The Strategy for Achieving Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free Status for England. London: Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300447/pb14088-bovine-tb-strategy-140328.pdf
  6. Domingo M, Vidal E, Marco A. 6.  2014. Pathology of bovine tuberculosis. Res. Vet. Sci. 97:S20–S29 [Google Scholar]
  7. Liebana E, Johnson L, Gough J, Durr P, Jahans K. 7.  et al. 2008. Pathology of naturally occurring bovine tuberculosis in England and Wales. Vet. J. 176:354–60 [Google Scholar]
  8. Liebana E, Marsh S, Gough J, Nunez A, Vordermeier HM. 8.  et al. 2007. Distribution and activation of T-lymphocyte subsets in tuberculous bovine lymph-node granulomas. Vet. Pathol. 44:366–72 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cousins DV. 9.  2001. Mycobacterium bovis infection and control in domestic livestock. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epizoot. 20:71–85 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Lisle GW, Bengis RG, Schmitt SM, O'Brien DJ. 10.  2002. Tuberculosis in free-ranging wildlife: detection, diagnosis and management. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epizoot. 21:317–34 [Google Scholar]
  11. Monaghan ML, Doherty ML, Collins JD, Kazda JF, Quinn PJ. 11.  1994. The tuberculin test. Vet. Microbiol. 40:111–24 [Google Scholar]
  12. de la Rua-Domenech R, Goodchild AT, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG, Christiansen KH, Clifton-Hadley RS. 12.  2006. Ante mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle: a review of the tuberculin tests, γ-interferon assay and other ancillary diagnostic techniques. Res. Vet. Sci. 81:190–210 [Google Scholar]
  13. Buddle BM, Livingstone PG, de Lisle GW. 13.  2009. Advances in ante-mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle. N. Z. Vet. J. 57:173–80 [Google Scholar]
  14. Livingstone PG, Hancox N, Nugent G, de Lisle GW. 14.  2015. Toward eradication: the effect of Mycobacterium bovis infection in wildlife on the evolution and future direction of bovine tuberculosis management in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 63:Suppl. 14–18 [Google Scholar]
  15. O'Brien DJ, Schmitt SM, Fitzgerald SD, Berry DE. 15.  2011. Management of bovine tuberculosis in Michigan wildlife: current status and near term prospects. Vet. Microbiol. 151:179–87 [Google Scholar]
  16. Skinner MA, Wedlock DN, Buddle BM. 16.  2001. Vaccination of animals against Mycobacterium bovis. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epizoot. 20:112–32 [Google Scholar]
  17. Buddle BM, de Lisle GW, Pfeffer A, Aldwell FE. 17.  1995. Immunological responses and protection against Mycobacterium bovis in calves vaccinated with a low dose of BCG. Vaccine 13:1123–30 [Google Scholar]
  18. Buddle BM, Keen D, Thomson A, Jowett G, McCarthy AR. 18.  et al. 1995. Protection of cattle from bovine tuberculosis by vaccination with BCG by the respiratory or subcutaneous route, but not by vaccination with killed Mycobacterium vaccae. Res. Vet. Sci. 59:10–16 [Google Scholar]
  19. Vordermeier HM, Chambers MA, Cockle PJ, Whelan AO, Simmons J, Hewinson RG. 19.  2002. Correlation of ESAT-6-specific gamma interferon production with pathology in cattle following Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccination against experimental bovine tuberculosis. Infect. Immun. 70:3026–32 [Google Scholar]
  20. Palmer MV, Waters WR, Whipple DL. 20.  2002. Aerosol delivery of virulent Mycobacterium bovis to cattle. Tuberculosis 82:275–82 [Google Scholar]
  21. Wedlock DN, Aldwell FE, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG, Buddle BM. 21.  2011. Protection against bovine tuberculosis induced by oral vaccination of cattle with Mycobacterium bovis BCG is not enhanced by co-administration of mycobacterial protein vaccines. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 144:220–27 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hope JC, Thom ML, McAulay M, Mead E, Vordermeier HM. 22.  et al. 2011. Identification of surrogates and correlates of protection in protective immunity against Mycobacterium bovis infection induced in neonatal calves by vaccination with M. bovis BCG Pasteur and M. bovis BCG Danish. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 18:373–79 [Google Scholar]
  23. Wedlock DN, Denis M, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG, Buddle BM. 23.  2007. Vaccination of cattle with Danish and Pasteur strains of Mycobacterium bovis BCG induce different levels of IFNγ post-vaccination, but induce similar levels of protection against bovine tuberculosis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 118:50–58 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hope JC, Thom ML, Villarreal-Ramos B, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG, Howard CJ. 24.  2005. Vaccination of neonatal calves with Mycobacterium bovis BCG induces protection against intranasal challenge with virulent M. bovis. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 139:48–56 [Google Scholar]
  25. Buddle BM, Wedlock DN, Parlane NA, Corner LA, De Lisle GW, Skinner MA. 25.  2003. Revaccination of neonatal calves with Mycobacterium bovis BCG reduces the level of protection against bovine tuberculosis induced by a single vaccination. Infect. Immun. 71:6411–19 [Google Scholar]
  26. Buddle BM, Wards BJ, Aldwell FE, Collins DM, de Lisle GW. 26.  2002. Influence of sensitisation to environmental mycobacteria on subsequent vaccination against bovine tuberculosis. Vaccine 20:1126–33 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hope JC, Thom ML, Villarreal-Ramos B, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG, Howard CJ. 27.  2005. Exposure to Mycobacterium avium induces low-level protection from Mycobacterium bovis infection but compromises diagnosis of disease in cattle. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 141:432–39 [Google Scholar]
  28. Thom ML, McAulay M, Vordermeier HM, Clifford D, Hewinson RG. 28.  et al. 2012. Duration of immunity against Mycobacterium bovis following neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette-Guerin Danish: significant protection against infection at 12, but not 24, months. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19:1254–60 [Google Scholar]
  29. Parlane NA, Shu D, Subharat S, Wedlock DN, Rehm BH. 29.  et al. 2014. Revaccination of cattle with bacille Calmette-Guerin two years after first vaccination when immunity has waned, boosted protection against challenge with Mycobacterium bovis. PLOS ONE 9:e106519 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lopez-Valencia G, Renteria-Evangelista T, de Jesús Williams J, Licea-Navarro A, De la Mora-Valle A, Medina-Basulto G. 30.  2010. Field evaluation of the protective efficacy of Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine against bovine tuberculosis. Res. Vet. Sci. 88:44–49 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ameni G, Vordermeier M, Aseffa A, Young DB, Hewinson RG. 31.  2010. Field evaluation of the efficacy of Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guerin against bovine tuberculosis in neonatal calves in Ethiopia. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 17:1533–38 [Google Scholar]
  32. Maue AC, Waters WR, Palmer MV, Nonnecke BJ, Minion FC. 32.  et al. 2007. An ESAT-6:CFP10 DNA vaccine administered in conjunction with Mycobacterium bovis BCG confers protection to cattle challenged with virulent M. bovis. Vaccine 25:4735–46 [Google Scholar]
  33. Skinner MA, Buddle BM, Wedlock DN, Keen D, de Lisle GW. 33.  et al. 2003. A DNA prime-Mycobacterium bovis BCG boost vaccination strategy for cattle induces protection against bovine tuberculosis. Infect. Immun. 71:4901–7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Skinner MA, Wedlock DN, de Lisle GW, Cooke MM, Tascon RE. 34.  et al. 2005. The order of prime-boost vaccination of neonatal calves with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and a DNA vaccine encoding mycobacterial proteins Hsp65, Hsp70, and Apa is not critical for enhancing protection against bovine tuberculosis. Infect. Immun. 73:4441–44 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dean G, Clifford D, Gilbert S, McShane H, Hewinson RG. 35.  et al. 2014. Effect of dose and route of immunisation on the immune response induced in cattle by heterologous Bacille Calmette-Guerin priming and recombinant adenoviral vector boosting. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 158:208–13 [Google Scholar]
  36. Vordermeier HM, Huygen K, Singh M, Hewinson RG, Xing Z. 36.  2006. Immune responses induced in cattle by vaccination with a recombinant adenovirus expressing mycobacterial antigen 85A and Mycobacterium bovis BCG. Infect. Immun. 74:1416–18 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vordermeier HM, Rhodes SG, Dean G, Goonetilleke N, Huygen K. 37.  et al. 2004. Cellular immune responses induced in cattle by heterologous prime-boost vaccination using recombinant viruses and bacille Calmette-Guerin. Immunology 112:461–70 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vordermeier HM, Villarreal-Ramos B, Cockle PJ, McAulay M, Rhodes SG. 38.  et al. 2009. Viral booster vaccines improve Mycobacterium bovis BCG-induced protection against bovine tuberculosis. Infect. Immun. 77:3364–73 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wedlock DN, Denis M, Painter GF, Ainge GD, Vordermeier HM. 39.  et al. 2008. Enhanced protection against bovine tuberculosis after coadministration of Mycobacterium bovis BCG with a mycobacterial protein vaccine-adjuvant combination but not after coadministration of adjuvant alone. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 15:765–72 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang J, Thorson L, Stokes RW, Santosuosso M, Huygen K. 40.  et al. 2004. Single mucosal, but not parenteral, immunization with recombinant adenoviral-based vaccine provides potent protection from pulmonary tuberculosis. J. Immunol. 173:6357–65 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pérez de Val B, Vidal E, Villarreal-Ramos B, Gilbert SC, Andaluz A. 41.  et al. 2013. A multi-antigenic adenoviral-vectored vaccine improves BCG-induced protection of goats against pulmonary tuberculosis infection and prevents disease progression. PLOS ONE 8:e81317 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pérez de Val B, Villarreal-Ramos B, Nofrarías M, López-Soria S, Romera N. 42.  et al. 2012. Goats primed with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and boosted with a recombinant adenovirus expressing Ag85A show enhanced protection against tuberculosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19:1339–47 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ottenhoff TH, Kaufmann SH. 43.  2012. Vaccines against tuberculosis: Where are we and where do we need to go?. PLOS Pathog. 8:e1002607 [Google Scholar]
  44. Whelan A, Court P, Xing Z, Clifford D, Hogarth PJ. 44.  et al. 2012. Immunogenicity comparison of the intradermal or endobronchial boosting of BCG vaccinates with Ad5-85A. Vaccine 30:6294–300 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tchilian EZ, Ronan EO, de Lara C, Lee LN, Franken KL. 45.  et al. 2011. Simultaneous immunization against tuberculosis. PLOS ONE 6:e27477 [Google Scholar]
  46. Buddle BM, Skinner MA, Wedlock DN, Collins DM, de Lisle GW. 46.  2002. New generation vaccines and delivery systems for control of bovine tuberculosis in cattle and wildlife. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 87:177–85 [Google Scholar]
  47. Waters WR, Palmer MV, Nonnecke BJ, Thacker TC, Capinos Scherer CF. 47.  et al. 2009. Efficacy and immunogenicity of Mycobacterium bovis ΔRD1 against aerosol M. bovis infection in neonatal calves. Vaccine 27:1201–9 [Google Scholar]
  48. Blanco FC, Soria M, Gravisaco MJ, Bianco MV, Meikle V. 48.  et al. 2012. Assessment of the immune responses induced in cattle after inoculation of a Mycobacterium bovis strain deleted in two mce2 genes. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012:258353 [Google Scholar]
  49. Blanco FC, Bianco MV, Garbaccio S, Meikle V, Gravisaco MJ. 49.  et al. 2013. Mycobacterium bovis Δmce2 double deletion mutant protects cattle against challenge with virulent M. bovis. Tuberculosis 93:363–72 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rizzi C, Bianco MV, Blanco FC, Soria M, Gravisaco MJ. 50.  et al. 2012. Vaccination with a BCG strain overexpressing Ag85B protects cattle against Mycobacterium bovis challenge. PLOS ONE 7:e51396 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sander P, Clark S, Petrera A, Vilaplana C, Meuli M. 51.  et al. 2015. Deletion of zmp1 improves Mycobacterium bovis BCG-mediated protection in a guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Vaccine 33:1353–59 [Google Scholar]
  52. Khatri B, Whelan A, Clifford D, Petrera A, Sander P, Vordermeier HM. 52.  2014. BCG Δzmp1 vaccine induces enhanced antigen specific immune responses in cattle. Vaccine 32:779–84 [Google Scholar]
  53. Berggren SA. 53.  1981. Field experiment with BCG vaccine in Malawi. Br. Vet. J. 137:88–96 [Google Scholar]
  54. Buddle BM, Parlane NA, Keen DL, Aldwell FE, Pollock JM. 54.  et al. 1999. Differentiation between Mycobacterium bovis BCG-vaccinated and M. bovis-infected cattle by using recombinant mycobacterial antigens. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:1–5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Vordermeier HM, Cockle PC, Whelan A, Rhodes S, Palmer N. 55.  et al. 1999. Development of diagnostic reagents to differentiate between Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccination and M. bovis infection in cattle. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:675–82 [Google Scholar]
  56. Whelan AO, Coad M, Upadhyay BL, Clifford DJ, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 56.  2011. Lack of correlation between BCG-induced tuberculin skin test sensitisation and protective immunity in cattle. Vaccine 29:5453–58 [Google Scholar]
  57. Garnier T, Eiglmeier K, Camus JC, Medina N, Mansoor H. 57.  et al. 2003. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium bovis. PNAS 100:7877–82 [Google Scholar]
  58. Cole ST, Brosch R, Parkhill J, Garnier T, Churcher C. 58.  et al. 1998. Deciphering the biology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from the complete genome sequence. Nature 393:537–44 [Google Scholar]
  59. Brosch R, Gordon SV, Garnier T, Eiglmeier K, Frigui W. 59.  et al. 2007. Genome plasticity of BCG and impact on vaccine efficacy. PNAS 104:5596–601 [Google Scholar]
  60. Li L, Bannantine JP, Zhang Q, Amonsin A, May BJ. 60.  et al. 2005. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. PNAS 102:12344–49 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pollock JM, Andersen P. 61.  1997. Predominant recognition of the ESAT-6 protein in the first phase of interferon with Mycobacterium bovis in cattle. Infect. Immun. 65:2587–92 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pollock JM, Andersen P. 62.  1997. The potential of the ESAT-6 antigen secreted by virulent mycobacteria for specific diagnosis of tuberculosis. J. Infect. Dis. 175:1251–54 [Google Scholar]
  63. Ravn P, Demissie A, Eguale T, Wondwosson H, Lein D. 63.  et al. 1999. Human T cell responses to the ESAT-6 antigen from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Infect. Dis. 179:637–45 [Google Scholar]
  64. van Pinxteren LAH, Ravn P, Agger EM, Pollock J, Andersen P. 64.  2000. Diagnosis of tuberculosis based on the two specific antigens ESAT-6 and CFP10. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 7:155–60 [Google Scholar]
  65. Vordermeier HM, Whelan A, Cockle PJ, Farrant L, Palmer N, Hewinson RG. 65.  2001. Use of synthetic peptides derived from the antigens ESAT-6 and CFP-10 for differential diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 8:571–78 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mahairas GG, Sabo PJ, Hickey MJ, Singh DC, Stover CK. 66.  1996. Molecular analysis of genetic differences between Mycobacterium bovis BCG and virulent M. bovis. J. Bacteriol. 178:1274–82 [Google Scholar]
  67. Arend SM, Geluk A, van Meijgaarden KE, van Dissel JT, Theisen M. 67.  et al. 2000. Antigenic equivalence of human T-cell responses to Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific RD1-encoded protein antigens ESAT-6 and culture filtrate protein 10 and to mixtures of synthetic peptides. Infect. Immun. 68:3314–21 [Google Scholar]
  68. Cockle PJ, Gordon SV, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 68.  2006. Field evaluation of a novel differential diagnostic reagent for detection of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:1119–24 [Google Scholar]
  69. Cockle PJ, Gordon SV, Lalvani A, Buddle BM, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 69.  2002. Identification of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens with potential as diagnostic reagents or subunit vaccine candidates by comparative genomics. Infect. Immun. 70:6996–7003 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ewer K, Cockle P, Gordon S, Mansoor H, Govaerts M. 70.  et al. 2006. Antigen mining with iterative genome screens identifies novel diagnostics for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:90–97 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sidders B, Withers M, Kendall SL, Bacon J, Waddell SJ. 71.  et al. 2007. Quantification of global transcription patterns in prokaryotes using spotted microarrays. Genome Biol. 8:R265 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sidders B, Pirson C, Hogarth PJ, Hewinson RG, Stoker NG. 72.  et al. 2008. Screening of highly expressed mycobacterial genes identifies Rv3615c as a useful differential diagnostic antigen for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Infect. Immun. 76:3932–39 [Google Scholar]
  73. Millington KA, Fortune SM, Low J, Garces A, Hingley-Wilson SM. 73.  et al. 2011. Rv3615c is a highly immunodominant RD1 (Region of Difference 1)-dependent secreted antigen specific for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. PNAS 108:5730–35 [Google Scholar]
  74. Jones GJ, Gordon SV, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 74.  2010. Screening of predicted secreted antigens from Mycobacterium bovis reveals the immunodominance of the ESAT-6 protein family. Infect. Immun. 78:1326–32 [Google Scholar]
  75. Jones GJ, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 75.  2010. Screening of predicted secreted antigens from Mycobacterium bovis identifies potential novel differential diagnostic reagents. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 17:1344–48 [Google Scholar]
  76. Pollock JM, McNair J, Bassett H, Cassidy JP, Costello E. 76.  et al. 2003. Specific delayed-type hypersensitivity responses to ESAT-6 identify tuberculosis-infected cattle. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:1856–60 [Google Scholar]
  77. Whelan AO, Hope JC, Howard CJ, Clifford D, Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM. 77.  2003. Modulation of the bovine delayed-type hypersensitivity responses to defined mycobacterial antigens by a synthetic bacterial lipopeptide. Infect. Immun. 71:6420–25 [Google Scholar]
  78. Whelan AO, Clifford D, Upadhyay B, Breadon EL, McNair J. 78.  et al. 2010. Development of a skin test for bovine tuberculosis for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:3176–81 [Google Scholar]
  79. Jones GJ, Khatri BL, Garcia-Pelayo MC, Kaveh DA, Bachy VS. 79.  et al. 2013. Development of an unbiased antigen-mining approach to identify novel vaccine antigens and diagnostic reagents for bovine tuberculosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 20:1675–82 [Google Scholar]
  80. Casal C, Bezos J, Díez-Guerrier A, Álvarez J, Romero B. 80.  et al. 2012. Evaluation of two cocktails containing ESAT-6, CFP-10 and Rv-3615c in the intradermal test and the interferon-γ assay for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Prev. Vet. Med. 105:149–54 [Google Scholar]
  81. Chen S, Parlane NA, Lee J, Wedlock DN, Buddle BM, Rehm BH. 81.  2014. New skin test for detection of bovine tuberculosis on the basis of antigen-displaying polyester inclusions produced by recombinant Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80:2526–35 [Google Scholar]
  82. Pérez de Val B, Nofrarías M, López-Soria S, Garrido JM, Vordermeier HM. 82.  et al. 2012. Effects of vaccination against paratuberculosis on tuberculosis in goats: diagnostic interferences and cross-protection. BMC Vet. Res. 8:191 [Google Scholar]
  83. Flores-Villalva S, Suárez-Güemes F, Espitia C, Whelan AO, Vordermeier M, Gutiérrez-Pabello JA. 83.  2012. Specificity of the tuberculin skin test is modified by use of a protein cocktail containing ESAT-6 and CFP-10 in cattle naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19:797–803 [Google Scholar]
  84. Jones GJ, Whelan A, Clifford D, Coad M, Vordermeier HM. 84.  2012. Improved skin test for differential diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis by the addition of Rv3020c-derived peptides. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19:620–22 [Google Scholar]
  85. Coad M, Clifford DJ, Vordermeier HM, Whelan AO. 85.  2013. The consequences of vaccination with the Johne's disease vaccine, Gudair, on diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Vet. Rec. 172:266 [Google Scholar]
  86. Stabel JR, Waters WR, Bannantine JP, Lyashchenko K. 86.  2011. Mediation of host immune responses after immunization of neonatal calves with a heat-killed Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis vaccine. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 18:2079–89 [Google Scholar]
  87. Conlan AJ, Brooks Pollock E, McKinley TJ, Mitchell AP, Jones GJ. 87.  et al. 2015. Potential benefits of cattle vaccination as a supplementary control for bovine tuberculosis. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11:e1004038 [Google Scholar]
  88. Dean G, Whelan A, Clifford D, Salguero FJ, Xing Z. 88.  et al. 2014. Comparison of the immunogenicity and protection against bovine tuberculosis following immunization by BCG-priming and boosting with adenovirus or protein based vaccines. Vaccine 32:1304–10 [Google Scholar]
  89. Aagaard C, Hoang TT, Izzo A, Billeskov R, Troudt J. 89.  et al. 2009. Protection and polyfunctional T cells induced by Ag85B-TB10.4/IC31 against Mycobacterium tuberculosis is highly dependent on the antigen dose. PLOS ONE 4:e5930 [Google Scholar]
  90. McShane H. 90.  2009. Vaccine strategies against tuberculosis. Swiss Med. Wkly. 139:156–60 [Google Scholar]
  91. Nambiar JK, Pinto R, Aguilo JI, Takatsu K, Martin C. 91.  et al. 2012. Protective immunity afforded by attenuated, PhoP-deficient Mycobacterium tuberculosis is associated with sustained generation of CD4+ T-cell memory. Eur. J. Immunol. 42:385–92 [Google Scholar]
  92. Whelan AO, Villarreal-Ramos B, Vordermeier HM, Hogarth PJ. 92.  2011. Development of an antibody to bovine IL-2 reveals multifunctional CD4 T(EM) cells in cattle naturally infected with bovine tuberculosis. PLOS ONE 6:e29194 [Google Scholar]
  93. Vordermeier HM, Huygen K, Singh M, Hewinson RG, Xing Z. 93.  2006. Immune responses induced in cattle by vaccination with a recombinant adenovirus expressing mycobacterial antigen 85A and Mycobacterium bovis BCG. Infect. Immun. 74:1416–18 [Google Scholar]
  94. Waters WR, Palmer MV, Nonnecke BJ, Thacker TC, Scherer CF. 94.  et al. 2007. Failure of a Mycobacterium tuberculosis ΔRD1 ΔpanCD double deletion mutant in a neonatal calf aerosol M. bovis challenge model: comparisons to responses elicited by M. bovis bacille Calmette Guerin. Vaccine 25:7832–40 [Google Scholar]
  95. Maggioli MF, Palmer MV, Thacker TC, Vordermeier HM, Waters WR. 95.  2015. Characterization of effector and memory T cell subsets in the immune response to bovine tuberculosis in cattle. PLOS ONE 10:e0122571 [Google Scholar]
  96. Aranday Cortes E, Kaveh D, Nunez-Garcia J, Hogarth PJ, Vordermeier HM. 96.  2010. Mycobacterium bovis-BCG vaccination induces specific pulmonary transcriptome biosignatures in mice. PLOS ONE 5:e11319 [Google Scholar]
  97. Khader SA, Bell GK, Pearl JE, Fountain JJ, Rangel-Moreno J. 97.  et al. 2007. IL-23 and IL-17 in the establishment of protective pulmonary CD4+ T cell responses after vaccination and during Mycobacterium tuberculosis challenge. Nat. Immunol. 8:369–77 [Google Scholar]
  98. Khader SA, Cooper AM. 98.  2008. IL-23 and IL-17 in tuberculosis. Cytokine 41:79–83 [Google Scholar]
  99. Bhuju S, Aranday-Cortes E, Villarreal-Ramos B, Xing Z, Singh M, Vordermeier HM. 99.  2012. Global gene transcriptome analysis in vaccinated cattle revealed a dominant role of IL-22 for protection against bovine tuberculosis. PLOS Pathog. 8:e1003077 [Google Scholar]
  100. Millington KA, Innes JA, Hackforth S, Hinks TS, Deeks JJ. 100.  et al. 2007. Dynamic relationship between IFN-γ and IL-2 profile of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific T cells and antigen load. J. Immunol. 178:5217–26 [Google Scholar]
  101. Casey R, Blumenkrantz D, Millington K, Montamat-Sicotte D, Kon OM. 101.  et al. 2010. Enumeration of functional T-cell subsets by fluorescence-immunospot defines signatures of pathogen burden in tuberculosis. PLOS ONE 5:e15619 [Google Scholar]
  102. Rhodes SG, McKinna LC, Steinbach S, Dean GS, Villarreal-Ramos B. 102.  et al. 2014. Use of antigen-specific interleukin-2 to differentiate between cattle vaccinated with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and cattle infected with M. bovis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 21:39–45 [Google Scholar]
  103. Singh SK, Tripathi DK, Singh PK, Sharma S, Srivastava KK. 103.  2013. Protective and survival efficacies of Rv0160c protein in murine model of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Appl. Microbiol. Technol. 97:5825–37 [Google Scholar]
  104. Golby P, Villarreal-Ramos B, Dean G, Jones GJ, Vordermeier M. 104.  2014. MicroRNA expression profiling of PPD-B stimulated PBMC from M. bovis-challenged unvaccinated and BCG vaccinated cattle. Vaccine 32:5839–44 [Google Scholar]
  105. Wu J, Lu C, Diao N, Zhang S, Wang S. 105.  et al. 2012. Analysis of microRNA expression profiling identifies miR-155 and miR-155* as potential diagnostic markers for active tuberculosis: a preliminary study. Hum. Immunol. 73:31–37 [Google Scholar]
  106. Vegh P, Foroushani AB, Magee DA, McCabe MS, Browne JA. 106.  et al. 2013. Profiling microRNA expression in bovine alveolar macrophages using RNA-seq. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 155:238–44 [Google Scholar]
  107. Aranday-Cortes E, Hogarth PJ, Kaveh DA, Whelan AO, Villarreal-Ramos B. 107.  et al. 2012. Transcriptional profiling of disease-induced host responses in bovine tuberculosis and the identification of potential diagnostic biomarkers. PLOS ONE 7:e30626 [Google Scholar]
  108. Ruhwald M, Aabye MG, Ravn P. 108.  2012. IP-10 release assays in the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection: current status and future directions. Exp. Rev. Mol. Diagn. 12:175–87 [Google Scholar]
  109. Waters WR, Thacker TC, Nonnecke BJ, Palmer MV, Schiller I. 109.  et al. 2012. Evaluation of gamma interferon (IFN-γ)-induced protein 10 responses for detection of cattle infected with Mycobacterium bovis: comparisons to IFN-γ responses. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19:346–51 [Google Scholar]
  110. Goosen WJ, Cooper D, Warren RM, Miller MA, van Helden PD, Parsons SD. 110.  2014. The evaluation of candidate biomarkers of cell-mediated immunity for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium bovis infection in African buffaloes (Syncerus caffer). Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 162:198–202 [Google Scholar]
  111. Buddle BM, Parlane NA, Wedlock DN, Heiser A. 111.  2013. Overview of vaccination trials for control of tuberculosis in cattle, wildlife and humans. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 60:Suppl. 1136–46 [Google Scholar]
  112. Skinner MA, Ramsay AJ, Buchan GS, Keen DL, Ranasinghe C. 112.  et al. 2003. A DNA prime-live vaccine boost strategy in mice can augment IFN-γ responses to mycobacterial antigens but does not increase the protective efficacy of two attenuated strains of Mycobacterium bovis against bovine tuberculosis. Immunology 108:548–55 [Google Scholar]
  113. Lyashchenko K, Whelan AO, Greenwald R, Pollock JM, Andersen P. 113.  et al. 2004. Association of tuberculin-boosted antibody responses with pathology and cell-mediated immunity in cattle vaccinated with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and infected with M. bovis. Infect. Immun. 72:2462–67 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wedlock DN, Skinner MA, Parlane NA, Vordermeier HM, Hewinson RG. 114.  et al. 2003. Vaccination with DNA vaccines encoding MPB70 or MPB83 or a MPB70 DNA prime-protein boost does not protect cattle against bovine tuberculosis. Tuberculosis 83:339–49 [Google Scholar]
  115. Rhodes SG, Sawyer J, Whelan AO, Dean GS, Coad M. 115.  et al. 2007. Is interleukin-4Δ3 splice variant expression in bovine tuberculosis a marker of protective immunity?. Infect. Immun. 75:3006–13 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311
Loading
Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle: Vaccines, DIVA Tests, and Host Biomarker Discovery*
Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 4, 87 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111311
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error