Potency of a commercial inactivated trivalent foot-and-mouth disease vaccine in local goats of the Diyala Governorate, Iraq
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31210/spi2026.29.02.10Keywords:
vaccine potency, goats, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, pregnancy, immunity, Foot-and-Mouth DiseaseAbstract
Foot-and-Mouth Disease remains one of the most economically devastating infections affecting livestock producers globally. This study evaluated the immunogenicity and field efficacy of a commercial inactivated trivalent vaccine containing serotypes O, A, and Asia-1 in the local goat population of the Diyala Governorate, Iraq, focusing on assessing how host sex and pregnancy status modulate the resulting humoral immune response. A total of 178 clinically healthy local breed goats, comprising 100 females and 78 males aged between 7 and 36 months, were immunized with a single 1 mL dose administered subcutaneously. Paired blood samples were collected immediately before vaccination (Day 0) and at Day 28 post-vaccination to capture peak antibody synthesis. Serological analysis was performed using a commercial solid-phase competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit, with antibody levels expressed as percentage inhibition, where a threshold of greater than or equal to 50 % was defined as protective immunity. Evaluation of baseline samples revealed a pre-vaccination seropositivity rate of 15.2 % (27/178), confirming that the virus is endemic to the region. Following immunization, the overall protective seropositivity rate increased significantly to 89.3 % (159/178) by Day 28 (p<0.001), and the mean percentage inhibition values more than doubled across all three viral strains. Host sex exerted no statistically significant influence on vaccine responsiveness (p=0.541), yielding comparable seropositivity rates of 87.2 % for male and 90.8 % for female cohorts. Conversely, pregnancy status imposed a substantial physiological limitation on vaccine-induced immunogenicity. Pregnant goats exhibited a significantly lower protective seropositivity rate of 82.1 % compared to 97.3 % in non-pregnant animals (p=0.026). Furthermore, gestation significantly suppressed antibody synthesis levels for serotypes O (p=0.001) and Asia-1 (p=0.002). In conclusion, while the commercial trivalent vaccine is safe and highly potent, pregnancy-induced immunosuppression significantly reduces its protective efficacy. These findings suggest that small ruminants must be integrated into national control programs, and vaccination campaigns should be strategically timed during non-pregnant phases, such as the early dry period or prior to the breeding season, to optimize herd immunity.
References
1. Grubman, M. J., & Baxt, B. (2004). Foot-and-mouth disease. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 17(2), 465–493. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.17.2.465-493.2004
2. Domingo, E., Pariente, N., Airaksinen, A., González-Lopez, C., Sierra, S., Herrera, M., Grande-Pérez, A., Lowenstein, P. R., Manrubia, S. C., Lázaro, E., & Escarmís, C. (2005). Foot-and-mouth disease virus evolution: Exploring pathways towards virus extinction. In B. W. Mahy (Ed.), Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus (pp. 149–173). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27109-0_7
3. Doel, T. R. (2003). FMD vaccines. Virus Research, 91(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00261-7
4. Al-Salihi, K. A. (2019). The epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks and its history in Iraq. Veterinary World, 12(5), 706–712. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.706-712
5. Knight-Jones, T. J. D., & Rushton, J. (2013). The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112(3-4), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013
6. World Organisation for Animal Health. (2023). Foot and mouth disease (Chapter 3.1.8). In Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. https://www.woah.org
7. Paiba, G. A., Anderson, J., Paton, D. J., Soldan, A. W., Alexandersen, S., Corteyn, M., Wilsden, G., Hamblin, P., MacKay, D. K. J., & Donaldson, A. I. (2004). Validation of a foot-and-mouth disease antibody screening solid-phase competition ELISA (SPCE). Journal of Virological Methods, 115(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2003.09.016
8. Mackay, D. K. J., Forsyth, M. A., Davies, P. R., Berlinzani, A., Belsham, G. J., Flint, M., & Ryan, M. D. (1998). Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease using a panel of recombinant, non-structural proteins in ELISA. Vaccine, 16(5), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(97)00227-2
9. Hamblin, C., Kitching, R. P., Donaldson, A. I., Crowther, J. R., & Barnett, I. T. R. (1987). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus: III. Evaluation of antibodies after infection and vac-cination. Epidemiology and Infection, 99(3), 733–744. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268800066590
10. Stenfeldt, C., Eschbaumer, M., Humphreys, J., Medina, G. N., & Arzt, J. (2025). The pathogenesis of foot-and-mouth disease virus: current understandings and knowledge gaps. Veterinary Research, 56(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-025-01545-5
11. Mahmoud, M. A. E.-F., Ghazy, A. A., & Shaapan, R. M. (2018). Diagnosis and control of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in dairy small ruminants; sheep and goats. International Journal of Dairy Science, 14(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijds.2019.45.52
12. Robinson, D. P., & Klein, S. L. (2012). Pregnancy and pregnancy-associated hormones alter immune responses and disease pathogenesis. Hormones and Behavior, 62(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.02.023
13. Jamal, S. M., & Belsham, G. J. (2013). Foot-and-mouth disease: past, present and future. Veterinary Research, 44(1), 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9716-44-116
14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016, September). Foot-and-mouth disease situation (Monthly Report). (D. King, Ed.). WRLFMD; Pirbright. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/eufmd/docs/FMD_monthly_reports/2016/Sept2016.pdf
15. Ott, T. L., & Gifford, C. A. (2010). Effects of early conceptus signals on circulating immune cells: Lessons from domestic ruminants. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 64(4), 245–254. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00912.x
16. Chambers, M. A., Graham, S. P., & La Ragione, R. M. (2016). Challenges in veterinary vaccine development and immunization. In S. Thomas (Ed.), Vaccine design: Methods and protocols (pp. 3–35). Humana. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3389-1_1
17. Niewiesk, S. (2014). Maternal antibodies: Clinical significance, mechanism of interference with immune responses, and possible vaccination strategies. Frontiers in Immunology, 5, 446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00446
18. Schat, K. A. (2014). Vaccines and vaccination practices: Key to sustainable animal production. In N. K. Van Alfen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems (pp. 315–332). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-52512-3.00189-3
19. Lacasta, D., Ferrer, L. M., Ramos, J. J., González, J. M., Ortín, A., & Fthenakis, G. C. (2015). Vaccination schedules in small ruminant farms. Veterinary Microbiology, 181(1-2), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.07.018
20. Garcia-Pintos, C., Riet-Correa, F., & Menchaca, A. (2021). Effect of Foot-and-mouth disease vaccine on pregnancy failure in beef cows. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 761304. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.761304
21. Kim, D., Moon, J., Ha, J., Kim, D., & Yi, J. (2021). Effect of foot-and-mouth disease vaccination on acute phase immune response and anovulation in Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae). Vaccines, 9(5), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050419
