IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1004038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential Benefits of Cattle Vaccination as a Supplementary Control for Bovine Tuberculosis

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew J K Conlan
  • Ellen Brooks Pollock
  • Trevelyan J McKinley
  • Andrew P Mitchell
  • Gareth J Jones
  • Martin Vordermeier
  • James L N Wood

Abstract

Vaccination for the control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle is not currently used within any international control program, and is illegal within the EU. Candidate vaccines, based upon Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) all interfere with the action of the tuberculin skin test, which is used to determine if animals, herds and countries are officially bTB-free. New diagnostic tests that Differentiate Infected from Vaccinated Animals (DIVA) offer the potential to introduce vaccination within existing eradication programs. We use within-herd transmission models estimated from historical data from Great Britain (GB) to explore the feasibility of such supplemental use of vaccination. The economic impact of bovine Tuberculosis for farmers is dominated by the costs associated with testing, and associated restrictions on animal movements. Farmers’ willingness to adopt vaccination will require vaccination to not only reduce the burden of infection, but also the risk of restrictions being imposed. We find that, under the intensive sequence of testing in GB, it is the specificity of the DIVA test, rather than the sensitivity, that is the greatest barrier to see a herd level benefit of vaccination. The potential negative effects of vaccination could be mitigated through relaxation of testing. However, this could potentially increase the hidden burden of infection within Officially TB Free herds. Using our models, we explore the range of the DIVA test characteristics necessary to see a protective herd level benefit of vaccination. We estimate that a DIVA specificity of at least 99.85% and sensitivity of >40% is required to see a protective benefit of vaccination with no increase in the risk of missed infection. Data from experimentally infected animals suggest that this target specificity could be achieved in vaccinates using a cocktail of three DIVA antigens while maintaining a sensitivity of 73.3% (95%CI: 61.9, 82.9%) relative to post-mortem detection.Author Summary: Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a major economic disease of livestock worldwide. Despite an intensive, and costly, control program in the United Kingdom, bTB continues to persist. Vaccination can provide some protection to cattle, but is currently illegal within the European Union due to the interaction of BCG with the action of the tuberculin skin test. The EU has signaled that changes in legislation will require field validation of BCG as a supplement to existing controls. A particular concern is that the imperfect sensitivity of prospective DIVA tests for vaccinates may increase the chances of infection being missed within herds. However, we demonstrate that high DIVA specificity will also be essential in order for farmers to see a protective herd level benefit of vaccination in terms of the frequency of tests they are subjected to and number of animals condemned. Field validation of the DIVA test will be an essential prerequisite to use of BCG in the field. Our estimated target specificity provides an important criterion for validation of prospective DIVA tests before deployment in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew J K Conlan & Ellen Brooks Pollock & Trevelyan J McKinley & Andrew P Mitchell & Gareth J Jones & Martin Vordermeier & James L N Wood, 2015. "Potential Benefits of Cattle Vaccination as a Supplementary Control for Bovine Tuberculosis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004038
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004038
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004038&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Bennett & Kelvin Balcombe, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for a Tuberculosis Cattle Vaccine," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 408-424, June.
    2. Ryan N Gutenkunst & Joshua J Waterfall & Fergal P Casey & Kevin S Brown & Christopher R Myers & James P Sethna, 2007. "Universally Sloppy Parameter Sensitivities in Systems Biology Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-8, October.
    3. Andrew J K Conlan & Trevelyan J McKinley & Katerina Karolemeas & Ellen Brooks Pollock & Anthony V Goodchild & Andrew P Mitchell & Colin P D Birch & Richard S Clifton-Hadley & James L N Wood, 2012. "Estimating the Hidden Burden of Bovine Tuberculosis in Great Britain," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Jackson, Christopher H, 2008. "Displaying Uncertainty With Shading," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 62(4), pages 340-347.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine M Smith & Sara H Downs & Andy Mitchell & Andrew C Hayward & Hannah Fry & Steven C Le Comber, 2015. "Spatial Targeting for Bovine Tuberculosis Control: Can the Locations of Infected Cattle Be Used to Find Infected Badgers?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Samuel Bandara & Johannes P Schlöder & Roland Eils & Hans Georg Bock & Tobias Meyer, 2009. "Optimal Experimental Design for Parameter Estimation of a Cell Signaling Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Carlo Romano Marcello Alessandro Santagiustina & Matteo Iacopini, 2020. "Visualizing and comparing distributions with half-disk density strips," Papers 2006.16063, arXiv.org.
    5. Adel Dayarian & Madalena Chaves & Eduardo D Sontag & Anirvan M Sengupta, 2009. "Shape, Size, and Robustness: Feasible Regions in the Parameter Space of Biochemical Networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, January.
    6. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    7. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    8. Stanislav Katina & Liberty Vittert & Adrian W. Bowman, 2021. "Functional data analysis and visualisation of three‐dimensional surface shape," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(3), pages 691-713, June.
    9. Amrita X Sarkar & Eric A Sobie, 2010. "Regression Analysis for Constraining Free Parameters in Electrophysiological Models of Cardiac Cells," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-11, September.
    10. Samal Kaliyeva & Francisco Jose Areal & Yiorgos Gadanakis, 2021. "Would Kazakh Citizens Support a Milk Co-Operative System?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Hongwei Shao & Tao Peng & Zhiwei Ji & Jing Su & Xiaobo Zhou, 2013. "Systematically Studying Kinase Inhibitor Induced Signaling Network Signatures by Integrating Both Therapeutic and Side Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Ioannis Andrianakis & Ian R Vernon & Nicky McCreesh & Trevelyan J McKinley & Jeremy E Oakley & Rebecca N Nsubuga & Michael Goldstein & Richard G White, 2015. "Bayesian History Matching of Complex Infectious Disease Models Using Emulation: A Tutorial and a Case Study on HIV in Uganda," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Alireza Yazdani & Lu Lu & Maziar Raissi & George Em Karniadakis, 2020. "Systems biology informed deep learning for inferring parameters and hidden dynamics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Fridtjof Brauns & Leila Iñigo de la Cruz & Werner K.-G. Daalman & Ilse Bruin & Jacob Halatek & Liedewij Laan & Erwin Frey, 2023. "Redundancy and the role of protein copy numbers in the cell polarization machinery of budding yeast," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Eberhard O Voit & Harald A Martens & Stig W Omholt, 2015. "150 Years of the Mass Action Law," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, January.
    16. Céline Christiansen-Jucht & Kamil Erguler & Chee Yan Shek & María-Gloria Basáñez & Paul E. Parham, 2015. "Modelling Anopheles gambiae s.s. Population Dynamics with Temperature- and Age-Dependent Survival," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-31, May.
    17. Gabriele Lillacci & Mustafa Khammash, 2010. "Parameter Estimation and Model Selection in Computational Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Andrew White & Malachi Tolman & Howard D Thames & Hubert Rodney Withers & Kathy A Mason & Mark K Transtrum, 2016. "The Limitations of Model-Based Experimental Design and Parameter Estimation in Sloppy Systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    19. Diego Fernández Slezak & Cecilia Suárez & Guillermo A Cecchi & Guillermo Marshall & Gustavo Stolovitzky, 2010. "When the Optimal Is Not the Best: Parameter Estimation in Complex Biological Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-10, October.
    20. Elba Raimúndez & Simone Keller & Gwen Zwingenberger & Karolin Ebert & Sabine Hug & Fabian J Theis & Dieter Maier & Birgit Luber & Jan Hasenauer, 2020. "Model-based analysis of response and resistance factors of cetuximab treatment in gastric cancer cell lines," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.