Vaccines For Cattle vs Vaccines for Humans-Lucky

[inyati13]

Lucky_P, this is a curiosity. There is an extensive range of vaccines and toxoids for cattle including protozoans, bacteria, and viruses; I haven't seen any for fungi. Innoculation of humans dates to the time before Christ. The first modern innoculation was for smallpox which is a virus. Polio is perhaps extinct except in labs due to vaccination. Vaccination has had the greatest success against viruses. Vaccinations for bacteria are not always effective. I see in the catalogs like Jeffers that there is a vaccine for almost everything for cattle. Vaccines are not so haphazardly used in humans. I was guessing that it is more acceptable taking risk with cattle versus humans. What is your notion on this? Are some of these vaccines I see really effective for anything other than producing sales?

Here is one specific: For mastitis, there is a vaccine for S. aureus, I have to wonder about that!!! Probably one of the most ubiquitous bacteria on the planet. I even wonder about bacteria vaccines for E. coli. When was the last time you had your E. coli vaccination? :lol: I think I will go get my S. aureus vaccination this week.

 

[Lucky_P]

Ron,
We are different species, with different pathogens and differing disease pressures. Not sure that I'd agree on the 'haphazard' aspect - other than the fact that humans' use of them is often haphazard, sometimes ill-timed, and often ineffective as a result.
Some vaccines are better than others at eliciting appropriate and effective immune response. Some elicit a response, but it may not be very effective or protective - but in some cases, something is better than nothing.

Coagulase-positive Staph aureus is a very common cause of mastitis in dairy cattle - and is of a very contagious/transmissible nature - easily transferred from cow to cow on milker's hands, milking equipment, etc., and does not respond very well to conventional treatment. I have no experience with the Staph vaccine, but if it provides even a modicum of protection or diminishes severity of disease, I'd use it.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-229/404-229.html
Likewise, the E.coli(J5) vaccine protects against endotoxemia that is responsible for high mortality rates &/or necrosis of one or more mammary quarters in cattle(again, mainly dairy cattle) that develop coliform mastitis.
http://www.nmconline.org/articles/coliformthrp.htm

Both of the above are economically important problems in the dairy industry.

 

[inyati13]

Ron,
We are different species, with different pathogens and differing disease pressures. Not sure that I'd agree on the 'haphazard' aspect - other than the fact that humans' use of them is often haphazard, sometimes ill-timed, and often ineffective as a result.
Some vaccines are better than others at eliciting appropriate and effective immune response. Some elicit a response, but it may not be very effective or protective - but in some cases, something is better than nothing.

Coagulase-positive Staph aureus is a very common cause of mastitis in dairy cattle - and is of a very contagious/transmissible nature - easily transferred from cow to cow on milker's hands, milking equipment, etc., and does not respond very well to conventional treatment. I have no experience with the Staph vaccine, but if it provides even a modicum of protection or diminishes severity of disease, I'd use it.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-229/404-229.html
Likewise, the E.coli(J5) vaccine protects against endotoxemia that is responsible for high mortality rates &/or necrosis of one or more mammary quarters in cattle(again, mainly dairy cattle) that develop coliform mastitis.
http://www.nmconline.org/articles/coliformthrp.htm

Both of the above are economically important problems in the dairy industry.

This is what I was getting at:
8. Many S. aureus vaccines have been designed and tested over the years. One research study indicated little-to-no effect on new intramammary infections following vaccination with a commercial product (Middleton et al. 2009). However, another investigation demonstrated a 61 percent reduction in S. aureus mastitis using the same product (Nickerson et al. 2008). Future research endeavors may focus on alternative vaccine options that will successfully prevent S. aureus mastitis.

The perception I have and it may be incorrect. It has been a long time since I have studied these things. But my perception of bacterial vaccines has been that they are not very effective for bacteria that are common, have extremely large genetic pools in which to evolve, and are ubiquitous. If my son were not so busy finishing his Ph D at Vanderbilt, I would call him but he would just tell me he dosn't have time to talk. :lol: Not kidding he wants to finish by December. But he took tons of microbiology, immunology, etc. I know S. aureus has to be one of the most ubiquitous bacteria and E. coli has to be a close second at least among pathogenic bacteria.

 

[inyati13]

Lucky, when I got your message, I could not open your second reference. I was able to open it this morning. I also supports the point I wanted to make. That reference does not suggest a vaccine, in fact, it mainly points to steps to avoid infection.

Here is a statement of the problem but it is 2008, may be superceded:

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is an important cause of nosocomial and community-acquired infections in humans and animals, as well as mastitis in dairy cattle. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus is increasingly recognized as a cause of staphylococcal infection and, therefore, immunotherapeutics have received new interest in both human and veterinary medicine. Vaccines aimed at preventing S. aureus infection in humans and mastitis in dairy cattle have been studied for many years. While some formulations have shown promise in ameliorating clinical disease, few, if any, of the S. aureus vaccines developed have adequately prevented new infection. The antigens targeted by S. aureus vaccines and potential reasons for the lack of success of vaccination against S. aureus are reviewed in this article.

More recent is an indication in July 2013 that we are still not there:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201307 ... ccine.aspx