Strategies for differentiating infection in vaccinated animals (DIVA) for foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever and avian influenza

References

• van Oirschot JT. Diva vaccines that reduce virus transmission. J. Biotechnol.73(2–3), 195–205 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasick J. Application of DIVA vaccines and their companion diagnostic tests to foreign animal disease eradication. Anim. Health Res. Rev.5(2), 257–262 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vannier P, Capua I, Le Potier MF et al. Marker vaccines and the impact of their use on diagnosis and prophylactic measures. Rev. Sci. Tech.26(2), 351–372 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez DL. Overview of avian influenza DIVA test strategies. Biologicals33(4), 221–226 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beer M, Reimann I, Hoffmann B, Depner K. Novel marker vaccines against classical swine fever. Vaccine25(30), 5665–5670 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parida S. Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus: strategies and effectiveness. Expert Rev. Vaccines8(3), 347–365 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann IE, Malirat V, Neitzert E, Correa Melo E. Vaccination: foot-and-mouth disease experience in South America. In: Development in Biologicals 119. Schudel A, Lombard M (Eds). Karger, NY, USA, 283–292 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Chung WB, Liao PC, Yang PC et al. Surveillance of FMD virus non-structural protein antibodies in pig populations involved in an eradication programme. Vet. Rec.152(19), 595–597 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brocchi E, Sorensen K, Mackay D. The use of serology as part of the exit strategy to the 1996 epidemic of FMD in the Balkans. Dev. Biol. (Basel)119, 283–292 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anonymous. Council directive 2003/85/EC on community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing directive 85/511/ECC and decisions 89/531/EEC and 96/665/EEC and amending directive 92/46/EEC. Offic. J. Eur. Union46 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Council Directive 2003/85/EC on community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 96/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC. Offic. J. Eur. Union46, L306 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Doel TR. FMD vaccines. Virus Res.91(1), 81–99 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavijo A, Wright P, Kitching P. Developments in diagnostic techniques for differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease. Vet. J.167(1), 9–22 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bruderer U, Swam H, Haas B et al. Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth-disease: evaluation of an ELISA based on recombinant 3ABC. Vet. Microbiol.101(3), 187–197 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Diego M, Brocchi E, Mackay D, De Simone F. The non-structural polyprotein 3ABC of foot-and-mouth disease virus as a diagnostic antigen in ELISA to differentiate infected from vaccinated cattle. Arch. Virol.142(10), 2021–2033 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hema M, Nagendrakumar SB, Yamini R et al. Chimeric tymovirus-like particles displaying foot-and-mouth disease virus non-structural protein epitopes and its use for detection of FMDV-NSP antibodies. Vaccine25(25), 4784–4794 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Inoue T, Parida S, Paton DJ et al. Development and evaluation of an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus nonstructural protein antibody using a chemically synthesized 2B peptide as antigen. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest.18(6), 545–552 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oem JK, Kye SJ, Lee KN et al. Development of synthetic peptide ELISA based on nonstructural protein 2C of foot and mouth disease virus. J. Vet. Sci.6(4), 317–325 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oem JK, Chang BS, Joo HD et al. Development of an epitope-blocking-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to differentiate between animals infected with and vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. Methods142(1–2), 174–181 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parida S, Cox SJ, Reid SM et al. The application of new techniques to the improved detection of persistently infected cattle after vaccination and contact exposure to foot-and-mouth disease. Vaccine23(44), 5186–5195 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Persson K, Nordengrahn A, Decker C, Merza M. The development of an indirect ELISA for the detection of antibodies to the non-structural protein 3ABC of the foot-and-mouth disease virus; the use of a polyclonal conjugate that allows a multi-species detection of antibodies. Report of: The Session of the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Crete, Greece 479–480 (2004) (Appendix 79).
   Google Scholar
• Schalch L, Rebeski DE, Samaras H et al. Recently generated data with the CHEKIT-FMD-3ABC ELISA kit and methods to monitor the operational performance of a 3ABC ELISA. Report of: The Session of the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Rome, FAO, Cesme, Izmir, Turkey, 283–302 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Shen F, Chen PD, Walfield AM et al. Differentiation of convalescent animals from those vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease by a peptide ELISA. Vaccine17(23–24), 3039–3049 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sorensen KJ, Madsen KG, Madsen ES et al. Differentiation of infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease by the detection of antibodies to the non-structural proteins 3D, 3AB and 3ABC in ELISA using antigens expressed in baculovirus. Arch. Virol.143(8), 1461–1476 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann IE, Malirat V, Neitzert E et al. Improvement of a serodiagnostic strategy for foot-and-mouth disease virus surveillance in cattle under systematic vaccination: a combined system of an indirect ELISA-3ABC with an enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot assay. Arch. Virol.145(3), 473–489 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay DK, Forsyth MA, Davies PR et al. Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease using a panel of recombinant, non-structural proteins in ELISA. Vaccine16(5), 446–459 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen KJ, de Stricker K, Dyrting KC, Grazioli S, Haas B. Differentiation of foot-and-mouth disease virus infected animals from vaccinated animals using a blocking ELISA based on baculovirus expressed FMDV 3ABC antigen and a 3ABC monoclonal antibody. Arch. Virol.150(4), 805–814 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brocchi E, Bergmann IE, Dekker A et al. Comparative evaluation of six ELISAs for the detection of antibodies to the non-structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine24(47–48), 6966–6979 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anonymous. Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines. Office International des Epizooties (6th Edition). Office International des Epizooties, Paris, France, 1, 190–216 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Malirat V, Neitzert E, Bergmann IE, Maradei E, Beck E. Detection of cattle exposed to foot-and-mouth disease virus by means of an indirect ELISA test using bioengineered nonstructural polyprotein 3ABC. Vet. Q.20(Suppl. 2), S24–S26 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paton DJ, De Clercq K, Greiner M et al. Application of non-structural protein antibody tests in substantiating freedom from foot-and-mouth disease virus infection after emergency vaccination of cattle. Vaccine24(42–43), 6503–6512 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paton D, Sammin D, Dyrting K et al.Comparative evaluation of serological tests for the detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus infection in vaccinated pigs. Presented at: Open Session of the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot and mouth Disease. Paphos, Cyprus, 16–20 October (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Amareen S, Grainger P, Fleming L et al. Serosurveillance against FMDV non-structural protein antibodies in sheep, goats and cattle in Jordan after 2006 outbreak. The Global Control of FMD – Tools, Ideas and Ideals. Presented at: Open Session of the EU FMD Standing Technical Committee. 271–274, Erice, Italy, 14–17 October 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Clavijo A, Zhou EM, Hole K, Galic B, Kitching P. Development and use of a biotinylated 3ABC recombinant protein in a solid-phase competitive ELISA for the detection of antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Virol. Methods120(2), 217–227 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perkins J, Clavijo A, Hindson BJ, Lenhoff RJ, McBride MT. Multiplexed detection of antibodies to nonstructural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Anal. Chem.78(15), 5462–5468 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perkins J, Parida S, Clavijo A. Use of a standardized bovine serum panel to evaluate a multiplexed nonstructural protein antibody assay for serological surveillance of foot-and-mouth disease. Clin. Vaccine Immunol.14(11), 1472–1482 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grubman MJ. Development of novel strategies to control foot-and-mouth disease: marker vaccines and antivirals. Biologicals33(4), 227–234 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parida S, Anderson J, Cox SJ, Barnett PV, Paton DJ. Secretory IgA as an indicator of oro-pharyngeal foot-and-mouth disease virus replication and as a tool for post vaccination surveillance. Vaccine24(8), 1107–1116 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biswas JK, Paton DJ, Taylor G, Parida S. Detection of persistently foot-and-mouth disease infected cattle by salivary IgA test. The Global Control of FMD – Tools, Ideas and Ideals. Presented at: Open Session of the EU FMD Standing Technical Committee. 377–382, Erice, Italy, 14–17 October 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Parida S, Oh Y, Reid SM et al. Interferon-g production in vitro from whole blood of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) vaccinated and infected cattle after incubation with inactivated FMDV. Vaccine24(7), 964–969 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin PA, Cameron AR, Greiner M. Demonstrating freedom from disease using multiple complex data sources 1: a new methodology based on scenario trees. Prev. Vet. Med.79(2–4), 71–97 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Foot and mouth disease. In: Terrestrial Animal Health Code (14th Edition). Office International des Epizooties, Paris, France (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Arnold ME, Paton DJ, Ryan E, Cox SJ, Wilesmith JW. Modelling studies to estimate the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease carriers after reactive vaccination. Proc. Biol. Sci.275(1630), 107–115 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahle J, Liess B. A review on classical swine fever infections in pigs: epizootiology, clinical disease and pathology. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.15(3), 203–211 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collett MS, Larson R, Belzer SK, Retzel E. Proteins encoded by bovine viral diarrhea virus: the genomic organization of a pestivirus. Virology165(1), 200–208 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers G, Thiel HJ. Molecular characterization of pestiviruses. Adv. Virus Res.47, 53–118 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu HX, Wang JF, Zhang CY et al. Attenuated lapinized chinese strain of classical swine fever virus: complete nucleotide sequence and character of 3´-noncoding region. Virus Genes23(1), 69–76 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaden V, Lange B. Oral immunisation against classical swine fever (CSF): onset and duration of immunity. Vet. Microbiol.82(4), 301–310 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stark KD, Mortensen S, Olsen AM et al. Designing serological surveillance programmes to document freedom from disease with special reference to exotic viral diseases of pigs in Denmark. Rev. Sci. Tech.19(3), 715–724 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Rijn PA, van Gennip HG, Moormann RJ. An experimental marker vaccine and accompanying serological diagnostic test both based on envelope glycoprotein E2 of classical swine fever virus (CSFV). Vaccine17(5), 433–440 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewulf J, Laevens H, Koenen F et al. An experimental infection with classical swine fever in E2 sub-unit marker-vaccine vaccinated and in non-vaccinated pigs. Vaccine19(4–5), 475–482 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Zijl M, Wensvoort G, de Kluyver E et al. Live attenuated pseudorabies virus expressing envelope glycoprotein E1 of hog cholera virus protects swine against both pseudorabies and hog cholera. J. Virol.65(5), 2761–2765 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konig M, Lengsfeld T, Pauly T, Stark R, Thiel HJ. Classical swine fever virus: independent induction of protective immunity by two structural glycoproteins. J. Virol.69(10), 6479–6486 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumenapf T, Stark R, Meyers G, Thiel HJ. Structural proteins of hog cholera virus expressed by vaccinia virus: further characterization and induction of protective immunity. J. Virol.65(2), 589–597 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond JM, Jansen ES, Morrissy CJ, Hodgson AL, Johnson MA. Protection of pigs against ‘in contact’ challenge with classical swine fever following oral or subcutaneous vaccination with a recombinant porcine adenovirus. Virus Res.97(2), 151–157 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hulst MM, Westra DF, Wensvoort G, Moormann RJ. Glycoprotein E1 of hog cholera virus expressed in insect cells protects swine from hog cholera. J. Virol.67(9), 5435–5442 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Smit AJ, Bouma A, de Kluijver EP, Terpstra C, Moormann RJ. Duration of the protection of an E2 subunit marker vaccine against classical swine fever after a single vaccination. Vet. Microbiol.78(4), 307–317 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bouma A, de Smit AJ, De Jong MC, de Kluijver EP, Moormann RJ. Determination of the onset of the herd-immunity induced by the E2 sub-unit vaccine against classical swine fever virus. Vaccine18(14), 1374–1381 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouma A, de Smit AJ, de Kluijver EP, Terpstra C, Moormann RJ. Efficacy and stability of a subunit vaccine based on glycoprotein E2 of classical swine fever virus. Vet. Microbiol.66(2), 101–114 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terzic S, Jemersic L, Lojkic M et al. Comparison of antibody values in sera of pigs vaccinated with a subunit or an attenuated vaccine against classical swine fever. Vet. Res. Commun.27(4), 329–339 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang C, Chien MS, Hu CM, Chen CW, Hsieh PC. Secreted expression of the classical swine fever virus glycoprotein E(rns) in yeast and application to a sandwich blocking ELISA. J. Virol. Methods132(1–2), 40–47 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uttenthal A, Le Potier M, Romero L, De Mia GM, Floegel-Niesmann G. Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial I. Challenge studies in weaner pigs. Vet. Microbiol.83(2), 85–106 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Depner KR, Bouma A, Koenen F et al. Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial II. Challenge study in pregnant sows. Vet. Microbiol.83(2), 107–120 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Floegel-Niesmann G. Classical swine fever (CSF) marker vaccine. Trial III. Evaluation of discriminatory ELISAs. Vet. Microbiol.83(2), 121–136 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dewulf J, Laevens H, Koenen F, Mintiens K, de Kruif A. A comparative study for emerency vaccination agains classical swine fever with an E2 sub-unit marker vaccine and a C-strain vaccine. Proceeding of: The Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Warwick, UK, 221–231 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Reimann I, Depner K, Trapp S, Beer M. An avirulent chimeric Pestivirus with altered cell tropism protects pigs against lethal infection with classical swine fever virus. Virology322(1), 143–157 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig P, Lange E, Reimann I, Beer M. CP7_E2alf: a safe and efficient marker vaccine strain for oral immunisation of wild boar against classical swine fever virus (CSFV). Vaccine25(17), 3391–3399 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gennip HG, van Rijn PA, Widjojoatmodjo MN, de Smit AJ, Moormann RJ. Chimeric classical swine fever viruses containing envelope protein E(RNS) or E2 of bovine viral diarrhoea virus protect pigs against challenge with CSFV and induce a distinguishable antibody response. Vaccine19(4–5), 447–459 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew ME, Morrissy CJ, Lenghaus C et al. Protection of pigs against classical swine fever with DNA-delivered gp55. Vaccine18(18), 1932–1938 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganges L, Barrera M, Nunez JI et al. A DNA vaccine expressing the E2 protein of classical swine fever virus elicits T cell responses that can prime for rapid antibody production and confer total protection upon viral challenge. Vaccine23(28), 3741–3752 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrew M, Morris K, Coupar B et al. Porcine interleukin-3 enhances DNA vaccination against classical swine fever. Vaccine24(16), 3241–3247 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rasmussen TB, Uttenthal A, Reimann I et al. Virulence, immunogenicity and vaccine properties of a novel chimeric pestivirus. J. Gen. Virol.88(Pt 2), 481–486 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rasmussen TB, Reimann I, Beer M, Uttenthal A. DIVA properties of the chimeric pestivirus CP7_E2gif. Presented at: Second Annual Meeting EPIZONE. Brescia, Italy, 72, 4–6 June 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen T, Rasmussen TB, Uttenthal A. Further evaluation of the DIVA vaccine properties of the chimeric pestivirus CP7-E2gif using commercially available CSFV ELISA kit systems. Presented at: Third annual meeting EPIZONE. Antalya Turkey, 178, 12–15 May 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Dong XN, Chen YH. Spying the neutralizing epitopes on E2 N-terminal by candidate epitope-vaccines against classical swine fever virus. Vaccine24(19), 4029–4034 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dong XN, Qi Y, Ying J, Chen X, Chen YH. Candidate peptide-vaccine induced potent protection against CSFV and identified a principal sequential neutralizing determinant on E2. Vaccine24(4), 426–434 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edwards S, Moennig V, Wensvoort G. The development of an international reference panel of monoclonal antibodies for the differentiation of hog cholera virus from other pestiviruses. Vet. Microbiol.29(2), 101–108 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin M, Lin F, Mallory M, Clavijo A. Deletions of structural glycoprotein E2 of classical swine fever virus strain alfort/187 resolve a linear epitope of monoclonal antibody WH303 and the minimal N-terminal domain essential for binding immunoglobulin G antibodies of a pig hyperimmune serum. J. Virol.74(24), 11619–11625 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Risatti GR, Holinka LG, Carrillo C et al. Identification of a novel virulence determinant within the E2 structural glycoprotein of classical swine fever virus. Virology355(1), 94–101 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Risatti GR, Holinka LG, Lu Z et al. Mutation of E1 glycoprotein of classical swine fever virus affects viral virulence in swine. Virology343(1), 116–127 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holinka LG, Fernandez-Sainz I, O’Donnell V et al. Development of a live attenuated antigenic marker classical swine fever vaccine. Virology384(1), 106–113 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rau H, Revets H, Balmelli C, McCullough KC, Summerfield A. Immunological properties of recombinant classical swine fever virus NS3 protein in vitro and in vivo. Vet. Res.37(1), 155–168 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Armengol E, Wiesmuller KH, Wienhold D et al. Identification of T-cell epitopes in the structural and non-structural proteins of classical swine fever virus. J. Gen. Virol.83(Pt 3), 551–560 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zaberezhny AD, Grebennikova TV, Kurinnov VV et al. Differentiation between vaccine strain and field isolates of classical swine fever virus using polymerase chain reaction and restriction test. DTW Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.106(9), 394–397 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li Y, Zhao JJ, Li N et al. A multiplex nested RT-PCR for the detection and differentiation of wild-type viruses from C-strain vaccine of classical swine fever virus. J. Virol. Methods143(1), 16–22 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leifer I, Depner K, Blome S et al. Differentiation of C-strain ‘Riems’ or CP7_E2alf vaccinated animals from animals infected by classical swine fever virus field strains using real-time RT-PCR. J. Virol. Methods158(1–2), 114–122 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu L, Hoffmann B, Baule C et al. Two real-time RT-PCR assays of classical swine fever virus, developed for the genetic differentiation of naturally infected from vaccinated wild boars. J. Virol. Methods159(1), 131–133 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bouvier NM, Palese P. The biology of influenza viruses. Vaccine26(Suppl. 4), D49–D53 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Avian Influenza Control in animals in Asia Bangkok (Thailand). Recommendations. Emergency Regional meeting, (FAO/OIE) (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. International scientific conference on avian influenza. Paris, France, 7–8 April 2005. Recommendations. Office International des Epizooties (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Swayne DE, Suarez DL. Highly pathogenic avian influenza. Rev. Sci. Tech.19(2), 463–482 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capua I, Terregino C, Cattoli G, Toffan A. Increased resistance of vaccinated turkeys to experimental infection with an H7N3 low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus. Avian Pathol.33(2), 158–163 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capua I, Terregino C, Cattoli G, Mutinelli F, Rodriguez JF. Development of a DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) strategy using a vaccine containing a heterologous neuraminidase for the control of avian influenza. Avian Pathol.32(1), 47–55 (2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dundon WG, Terregino C, Tuttoilmondo V et al. Preliminary validation of a commercial avian influenza N1 antibody competitive ELISA kit that can be used as part of a DIVA strategy. Presented at: First Annual Meeting EPIZONE. Lublin, Poland, 30 May–1 June 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Cattoli G, Milani A, Bettini F et al. Development and validation of an anti-N3 indirect immunofluorescent antibody test to be used as a companion diagnostic test in the framework of a ‘DIVA’ vaccination strategy for avian influenza infections in poultry.Avian Pathol.35(2), 154–159 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CW, Senne DA, Suarez DL. Generation of reassortant influenza vaccines by reverse genetics that allows utilization of a DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) strategy for the control of avian influenza. Vaccine22(23–24), 3175–3181 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kwon JS, Kimm MC, Jeong OM et al.Novel use of a N2-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for differentiation of infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA)-based identification of avian influenza. Vaccine27(24), 3189–3194 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu R, Chen Q, Zheng L et al. Generation and evaluation of an H9N1 influenza vaccine derived by reverse genetics that allows utilization of a DIVA strategy for control of H9N2 avian influenza. Arch. Virol.154(8), 1203–1210 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jadhao SJ, Lee CW, Sylte M, Suarez DL. Comparative efficacy of North American and antigenically matched reverse genetics derived H5N9 DIVA marker vaccines against highly pathogenic Asian H5N1 avian influenza viruses in chickens. Vaccine27(44), 6247–6260 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li C, Ping J, Jing B et al. H5N1 influenza marker vaccine for serological differentiation between vaccinated and infected chickens. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.372(2), 293–297 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tumpey TM, Alvarez R, Swayne DE, Suarez DL. Diagnostic approach for differentiating infected from vaccinated poultry on the basis of antibodies to NS1, the nonstructural protein of influenza A virus. J. Clin. Microbiol.43(2), 676–683 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao S, Jin M, Li H et al. Detection of antibodies to the nonstructural protein (NS1) of avian influenza viruses allows distinction between vaccinated and infected chickens. Avian Dis.49(4), 488–493 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dundon WG, Milani A, Cattoli G, Capua I. Progressive truncation of the non-structural 1 gene of H7N1 avian influenza viruses following extensive circulation in poultry. Virus Res.119(2), 171–176 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dundon WG, Maniero S, Toffan A, Capua I, Cattoli G. Appearance of serum antibodies against the avian influenza nonstructural 1 protein in experimentally infected chickens and turkeys. Avian Dis.51(1 Suppl.), 209–212 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lambrecht B, Steensels M, Van Borm S, Meulemans G, van den Berg T. Development of an M2e-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals. Avian Dis.51(1 Suppl.), 221–226 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swayne DE, Beck JR, Mickle TR. Efficacy of recombinant fowl poxvirus vaccine in protecting chickens against a highly pathogenic Mexican-origin H5N2 avian influenza virus. Avian Dis.41(4), 910–922 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiao CL, Yu KZ, Jiang YP et al. Protection of chickens against highly lethal H5N1 and H7N1 avian influenza viruses with a recombinant fowlpox virus co-expressing H5 haemagglutinin and N1 neuraminidase genes. Avian Pathol.32(1), 25–32 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublot M, Pritchard N, Swayne DE et al. Development and use of fowlpox vectored vaccines for avian influenza. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.1081, 193–201 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublot M, Pritchard N, Cruz JS et al. Efficacy of a fowlpox-vectored avian influenza H5 vaccine against Asian H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus challenge. Avian Dis.51(1 Suppl.), 498–500 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steensels M, Van BS, Lambrecht B et al. Efficacy of an inactivated and a fowlpox-vectored vaccine in Muscovy ducks against an Asian H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viral challenge. Avian Dis.51(1 Suppl.), 325–331 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swayne DE, Suarez DL, Schultz-Cherry S et al. Recombinant paramyxovirus type 1-avian influenza-H7 virus as a vaccine for protection of chickens against influenza and Newcastle disease. Avian Dis.47(3 Suppl.), 1047–1050 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park MS, Steel J, Garcia-Sastre A, Swayne D, Palese P. Engineered viral vaccine constructs with dual specificity: avian influenza and Newcastle disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA103(21), 8203–8208 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veits J, Wiesner D, Fuchs W et al. Newcastle disease virus expressing H5 hemagglutinin gene protects chickens against Newcastle disease and avian influenza. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA103(21), 8197–8202 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge J, Deng G, Wen Z et al. Newcastle disease virus-based live attenuated vaccine completely protects chickens and mice from lethal challenge of homologous and heterologous H5N1 avian influenza viruses. J. Virol.81(1), 150–158 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veits J, Luschow D, Kindermann K et al. Deletion of the non-essential UL0 gene of infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT) virus leads to attenuation in chickens, and UL0 mutants expressing influenza virus haemagglutinin (H7) protect against ILT and fowl plague. J. Gen. Virol.84(Pt 12), 3343–3352 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlova SP, Veits J, Keil GM, Mettemleiter TC, Fuchs W. Protection of chickens against H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection by live vaccination with infectious laryngotracheitis virus recombinants expressing the H5 hemagglutinin and N1 neuraminidase. Vaccine 27(5), 773–785 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Kalhoro NH, Veits J, Rautenschlein S, Zimmer G. A recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus replicon vaccines protects chickens from highly pathogenic avian virus (H7N1). Vaccine27(8), 1174–1183 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu M, Wood JM, Ellis T et al. Preparation of a standardized, efficacious agricultural H5N3 vaccine by reverse genetics. Virology314(2), 580–590 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govorkova EA, Webby RJ, Humberd J, Seiler JP, Webster RG. Immunization with reverse-genetics-produced H5N1 influenza vaccine protects ferrets against homologous and heterologous challenge. J. Infect. Dis.194(2), 159–167 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster RG, Webby RJ, Hoffmann E et al. The immunogenicity and efficacy against H5N1 challenge of reverse genetics-derived H5N3 influenza vaccine in ducks and chickens. Virology351(2), 303–311 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao W, Soloff AC, Lu X et al. Protection of mice and poultry from lethal H5N1 avian influenza virus through adenovirus-based immunization. J. Virol.80(4), 1959–1964 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu YM, Jin NY, Xia ZP et al. Expression of AIV subtype H5HA, H7HA and H9HA hemagglutinin gene in Pichia pastoris. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao22(2), 231–236 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prel A, Le Gall-Recule G, Cherbonnel M et al. Assessment of the protection afforded by triple baculovirus recombinant coexpressing H5, N3, M1 proteins against a homologous H5N3 low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus challenge in Muscovy ducks. Avian Dis.51(1 Suppl.), 484–489 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreijtz JH, Suezer Y, van AG et al. Recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based vaccine induces protective immunity in mice against infection with influenza virus H5N1. J. Infect. Dis.195(11), 1598–1606 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toro H, Tang DC, Suarez DL et al. Protective avian influenza in ovo vaccination with non-replicating human adenovirus vector. Vaccine25(15), 2886–2891 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao S, Kong WP, Wei CJ et al. Multivalent HA DNA vaccination protects against highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza infection in chickens and mice. PLoS ONE3(6), e2432 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhirnov OP, Isaeva EI, Konakova TE et al. Protection against mouse and avian influenza A strains via vaccination with a combination of conserved proteins NP, M1 and NS1. Influenza Other Respi. Viruses1(2), 71–79 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar