Dear Colleagues,

Dr Taylor and Dr Kivaria have raised pertinent question. I would like to list the following points in support of PPR control programme.

1. The example of Rinderpest eradication is in front of us. It has given us a hope that we can take up  other diseases for eradication. In India, National PPR control programme (I am not sure when it will be termed eradication programme) has been taken up in 2010. I strongly believe that successful RP eradication was sufficiently convincing to policy makers to start PPR control programme. Definitely cost-benefit of PPR control would have been factored into. 

2. In a short while from now,  a function is organized in New Delhi to celebrate "India's victory over polio". The term 'pulse polio' has caught the attention of people all over the country. Now when we explain to stake holders in disease control programme (PPR, FMD, Brucellosis, etc) we stress that the vaccination campaign has to be like 'pulse polio', people immediately get it. I think we need to cash in this sentiment for eradication of economically important diseases. Strike while iron is hot!    

3. Rinderpest virus caused the havoc with single serotype and it could be controlled with single vaccine strain. But PPR has several lineages (4 lineages or more?). However, this is not a concern as yet. But, the report of Nanakpur/2012 isolate which escapes PPR/sungri96 induced neutralizing antibodies, is a matter of concern. As Dr Taylor suggested, wider and thorough vaccination coverage is required to arrest the transmission of virus which can prevent the emergence of mutants/new lineages. 

Dr Michael Baron in his contribution on the 5th February goes a long way to explaining the probable issues with the Nanakpur virus. I agree with Dr Sreenivisan when he says that the different lineages of PPRV and the antigenic suitability of vaccines is not yet a concern, but this subject keeps cropping up especially when it involves lineage 4. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that rinderpest virus had three lineages of virus in modern times and a fourth lineage with a more historical origin (the Kabete O strain).  Other colleagues can add to this.   Several publications on new vaccines against PPR have made the point that they are homologous and lineage specific, and the subject has been touched on in this conference.   However, we know from the lab and the field that vaccines against morbilliviruses such as PPR do not need to be lineage specific. Rinderpest virus lineage 3 was restricted to Asia but the vaccine used to help eradicate it
 originated in Africa - the Kabete O lineage. And we know that lineage 4 PPRV is being effectively controlled in several Asian countries by strain Nig75/1 vaccine  which is PPRV lineage 1 and also from Africa.   At the moment there is still only one main serotype of PPRV - though I appreciate that monoclonal antibodies may distinguish between some isolates. - Moderator. 

With Regards,
Sreenivasa

>
________________________________
Dr.B.P.Sreenivasa
Principal Scientist
Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI)
Hebbal, Bangalore-560024
India

Tel:  91-80-23410729 (Work)
Fax: 91-80-23412509

Email: [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1