Skip to main content

Review on bovine respiratory syncytial virus and bovine parainfluenza – usual suspects in bovine respiratory disease – a narrative review

Abstract

Bovine Respiratory Syncytial virus (BRSV) and Bovine Parainfluenza 3 virus (BPIV3) are closely related viruses involved in and both important pathogens within bovine respiratory disease (BRD), a major cause of morbidity with economic losses in cattle populations around the world. The two viruses share characteristics such as morphology and replication strategy with each other and with their counterparts in humans, HRSV and HPIV3. Therefore, BRSV and BPIV3 infections in cattle are considered useful animal models for HRSV and HPIV3 infections in humans.

The interaction between the viruses and the different branches of the host’s immune system is rather complex. Neutralizing antibodies seem to be a correlate of protection against severe disease, and cell-mediated immunity is thought to be essential for virus clearance following acute infection. On the other hand, the host’s immune response considerably contributes to the tissue damage in the upper respiratory tract.

BRSV and BPIV3 also have similar pathobiological and epidemiological features. Therefore, combination vaccines against both viruses are very common and a variety of traditional live attenuated and inactivated BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines are commercially available.

Background

Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) affects young calves and young stock in all parts of the world and accounts for considerable economical losses. Outbreaks are typically related to environmental stress factors (transport, crowding, unfavorable climate conditions) as the disease results from the interactions between microorganisms in the respiratory tract and the animal’s resistance, which is affected by such non-biological factors. The clinical picture is characterized by respiratory symptoms and the severity can range from mild to severe with sometimes even fatal outcomes. Co-infection with several pathogens is the rule rather than the exception. Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus (BRSV) and Bovine Parainfluenza 3 Virus (BPIV3) are two closely related viruses that are often involved in BRD outbreaks. Having a lot of similarities in their morphology and replication strategy, also the (patho-)biology of the two viruses has a lot of common features. Intense research has led to the development of vaccines against the two viruses, often as bi-valent vaccines or in combination with other respiratory pathogens. Herein, the similarities and differences between BRSV and BPIV3 are presented to eventually provide a better understanding of their role and importance in the BRD complex.

Main text

The viruses: two close relatives

BRSV and BPIV3, along with their human counterparts HRSV and HPIV3, belong to the order Mononegavirales. Viruses belonging to this order are characterized as enveloped viruses with non-segmented, single-stranded, negative-sense RNA genomes. Formerly, these viruses were classified as Paramyxoviridae, but in 2016 the family Pneumoviridae was created and nowadays BRSV and HRSV belong to the genus Orthopneumovirus within this family. BRSV is therefore also referred to as Bovine orthopneumovirus [1, 2]. The official name of BPIV3 is Bovine respirovirus 3 as the virus is classified into the Respirovirus genus within the Paramyxoviridae family. Other members of this genus are the antigenically and genetically related human parainfluenza virus types 1 and 3 (HPIV1 and HPIV3, respectively) [3].

BRSV and BPIV3 have a spherical to pleomorphic shape at a size of 150–200 nm (Fig. 1). The virions consist of a nucleocapsid surrounded by a lipid envelope which is directly derived from the host cell membrane by budding. Viral transmembrane glycoproteins are located on the surface of the envelope. The major attachment protein G of BRSV is synthesized as two forms, a membrane-anchored and a secreted form, and around 80% of the G protein is produced as the secreted form 24 h after infection [4]. In addition to its role in the attachment to host cells, the G-protein may have other roles such as interacting with the immune system. It has been proposed that the secreted form might act as a decoy by binding to neutralizing antibodies [5].

Fig. 1
figure1

Morphology of BRSV and BPIV3. G: G protein; HN: Haemagglutinase – Neuraminidase; L: Polymerase protein; M: Matrix protein; N: Nucleoprotein; P: Phosphoprotein; F: Fusion protein

Recombinant BRSV lacking the G protein is still competent to replicate in cell culture as well as in young calves and to induce a protective immune response [6, 7].

The counterpart of the BRSV G protein in BPIV3 and other Paramyxoviruses has haemagglutinating properties (Fig. 2), it is called the haemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) protein. The BRSV G and BPIV3 HN proteins bind to sialic acid residues present on cell surfaces throughout the respiratory tract. Chimeric recombinant BRSV in which the G protein was replaced by the HN of BPIV3 are replication competent in vitro, although the two glycoproteins differ considerably in sequence and structure [8].

Fig. 2
figure2

Cytopathic effect caused by BPIV3 virus and haemadsorption of erythrocytes onto the surface of the infected cell layer

The BRSV G and BPIV3 HN proteins, together with the fusion protein (F), which both viruses have in common, mediate attachment and entry of the virions into the cells and delivery of the nucleocapsid into the cytoplasm of the host cell.

BRSV has a third glycoprotein, the small hydrophobic protein (SH). This protein has ion-channel functions [9] and may play a role in virus mediated cell fusion by interacting with the F protein [10]. SH has been shown to be non-essential for growth in vitro and in vivo, but mutants lacking the SH protein were attenuated [11].

The helical nucleocapsid consist of the nucleoprotein (N), the phosphoprotein (P), the viral RNA-dependent polymerase protein (L), and the genomic RNA of around 15,000 nucleotides in length.

The non-glycosylated matrix protein M is located on the inner envelope of the capsid and is the most abundant protein in infected cells. The M proteins are involved in assembly, budding and release of progeny viruses [12]. Different from other Paramyxoviridae, BRSV and other pneumoviruses have two additional matrix proteins, M2–1 and M2–2 which play a role in virus replication [13, 14].

Another major difference between the pneumoviruses (such as BRSV and HRSV) and the other Paramyxoviridae is the presence of two nonstructural (NS) proteins, NS1 and NS2. There is evidence that the NS proteins are inhibitors of viral RNA transcription and replication and they cooperatively antagonize the antiviral alpha/beta interferon-induced response of the host cell [15, 16]. These proteins are not essential for virus replication in vitro, although recombinant BRSV lacking NS1 or NS2 was severely attenuated in IFN-competent cells and in young calves [17].

Transcription of the negative-sense genomic template occurs in the cytoplasm of host cells. This generates sub-genomic positive-sense mRNAs. These are then copied into a full-length negative-sense antigenomic RNA which is encapsidated. The resulting ribonucleoprotein complex is transported to the cellular surface membrane, where budding occurs [18].

A characteristic that BRSV and BPIV3 share with other single-stranded RNA viruses is the high mutation rate, which confers a high adaptability of the virus. Analysis of the genetic evolution of a BRSV isolate during in vitro passage and subsequent inoculation in calves suggest that virus populations may evolve as complex and dynamic mutant swarms, although they appear to be genetically stable [19]. This likely depends on the type of cells and number of passages and may explain, why a loss of virulence following in vitro passage was observed in some infection studies [20], but not in others [21].

Another consequence of the high mutation rate is the antigenic variation. The BRSV has been classified in four antigenic groups (A, B, AB and an intermediate group) with six genetic groups. A continuous evolution occurs mainly in the antigenically important G-protein, especially in geographical regions where vaccines are widely used [22]. Studies with a new intranasal live BRSV – BPIV3 vaccine have demonstrated cross protection against BRSV isolates from a different geographic origin [23].

The antigenic variation in BPIV3 viruses appear to be less important than in BRSV. Phylogenetic reconstructions based on the nucleotide sequences for the M-protein and the entire genome, demonstrated two distinct BPIV-3 genotypes (BPIV-3a and BPIV-3b) and more recently, a third genotype [24, 25] has first been described in China and it seems to geo-expand sinceBPIV-3c has recently been reported in Serbia [26] and Turkey [27].

Epidemiological features – infection dynamics within and between herds

Like other respiratory viruses, BRSV and BPIV3 virus are horizontally transmitted. Airborne transmission of BRSV has been reproduced under experimental conditions [28]. This route, in combination with regular sub-clinical re-infection, is considered the main mechanism for spreading of BRSV and BPIV3 within a herd [29, 30]. Persistence of BRSV in cattle has been proposed [31, 32], but attempts to reactivate putative persistent BRSV were not successful [33]. Moreover, a Danish study showed up to 11% of genetic diversity between BRSV from various outbreaks in a herd, which is suggestive for a re-introduction of a virus into a herd rather than a latent re-circulating virus [34].

Also, in the case of BPIV3 it has been suggested that subclinical infections contribute to the maintenance of the infection in cattle populations [30].

Inter-herd transmission of BRSV is frequent and the virus has been detected in outbreaks in the summer months too, indicating that virus circulation occurs throughout the year [35]. The clustering of BRSV sequences according to geographical origin [22] might suggest a role for airborne transmission or mechanical transmission by visitors such as veterinarians.

Pathogenesis - what happens when the viruses get into the animal?

BRSV and BPIV3 are mainly spread by air droplet transmission and they enter the body via the respiratory tract. Once inhaled, the viruses penetrate or possibly degrade the mucous, which is the first line of defense of the innate immune system and thereafter invade epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract by binding to sialic acid residues on the cell membranes. BRSV and BPIV3 replicate predominantly in the respiratory tract [36, 37]. Infected animals excrete virus with nasal discharge during several days. In general, BRSV reaches lower titers than BPIV3 virus, both in tissue culture and after infection of animals [38]. Both viruses have been shown to infect tracheal cells, ciliated and non-ciliated bronchiolar cells (see Fig. 3), as well as pneumocytes [36, 39]. In contrast to BRSV, BPIV3 also invades and multiplies well in pulmonary alveolar macrophages (PAM). The replication of BPIV3 in the PAM has been linked to depression of phagocytosis and immunosuppressive prostaglandins [40]. Lymphocyte proliferation seems to be suppressed by bovine alveolar macrophages infected with the virus [41].

Fig. 3
figure3

Formation of syncytia and immunostaining of BRSV in mucosal cells in the bronchioli of a calf infected with BRSV

In continuous cell lines, both viruses grow with cytopathic effects characterized by the formation of syncytia. In an BRSV infected animal, pro-inflammatory genes are upregulated [42] and extensive mast-cell degeneration was observed in peracute cases of BRSV-related disease [43]. These findings suggest that the host’s immune response causes further tissue damage and contributes to the lung pathology [10, 44]. Antonis and colleagues [45] investigated age-dependent differences in the pathogenesis of BRSV infection in antibody negative calves at the age of 1 day or 6 weeks. Neonatal calves had more extensive virus replication and lung consolidation, but lower pro-inflammatory responses, specific humoral immune responses, lung neutrophilic infiltration and clinical signs in comparison with 6-week-old calves. The capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines appeared to increase with age and could therefore explain the observed age-dependent differences in the pathogenesis of BRSV.

Also, for BPIV3 virus, the immune response seems to be involved in the pathogenesis as supported by the finding that increased levels of histamine were released from mast cells from the lungs of BPIV3-infected calves [46]. Moreover, transcription of cytokines related to fever and other signs of inflammation like TNFα, IL1β, and IL6 were found to be upregulated after infection with BPIV3 [47].

The resulting tissue damage in combination with the host’s pro-inflammatory response favour secondary bacterial infections [48] leading to aggravation of the disease [30, 49,50,51].

Clinical symptoms and lesions

The severity of BRD symptoms can range from sub-clinical to fatal outcomes [52,53,54] depending on different factors such as the age, and immunological status, the presence of specific antibodies and immunosuppression. Under experimental conditions, the severity of disease might be related to the route and dose of infection as well as the virulence of a particular strain or the degree of attenuation following culture in vitro [20, 30], while under field conditions co-infection with other pathogens have an influence on the severity.

In the field, it is difficult to attribute the symptoms and lesions of a BRD case to a single pathogen, but information is available from experimental infection studies with either of the two viruses.

The common clinical symptoms associated with BRSV and BPIV3 are similar. The peak in clinical signs for BRSV is usually reached 4 to 6 days after infection [55]. Naïve calves usually develop a fever starting about 2 days after exposure, with body temperatures reaching up to 40 °C. Fever is often associated with depression, lack of appetite or anorexia, and an increased respiratory rate. The airways can become obstructed through the overproduction of mucous [56] that can lead to coughing and mucopurulent nasal discharge. Upon auscultation of the lungs, wheezing can be heard. A peracute severe form of disease related to infection with BRSV has been observed in beef cattle [43], but most animals recover within 10 days, unless other respiratory pathogens are involved [30, 57]. Clinical disease symptoms due to BPIV3 infections have been described as less severe compared to BRSV [58].

The results obtained at post-mortem investigation are similar for both viruses. The most common macroscopic lesions described are multilobular consolidation (Fig. 4), mainly in the cranial lung lobes. Interlobular emphysema may be seen after infection with BRSV but has not been described after infection with BPIV3.

Fig. 4
figure4

Interstitial pneumonia in a lung of a calf two weeks after infection with BRSV

Histological lesions associated with both viruses include bronchiolitis with peribronchial mononuclear infiltrates, epithelial necrosis and syncytia formation (Fig. 3) [30, 59, 60].

Interactions between the viruses and the immune system

Modulation of the innate immune response

BRSV infection in calves is considered an ideal model to study the pathogenesis of HRSV [61]. In this context, the complex interactions between the virus and the innate immune system have been extensively studied [62, 63]. Considerably less information is available for BPIV3.

BRSV activates the innate immune response resulting in the induction of a variety of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines which contributes to the pathology [10, 44, 45]. Moreover, it has been shown that BRSV can modulate the innate and adaptive immune response to mitigate stimulation of a CD8+ T cytotoxic cell response and instead promote a Th2 response [63].

The NS1 and NS2 proteins of human and bovine RSV suppress the induction of type 1 Interferon (IFN), one of the major anti-viral defence mechanisms of the innate immune system. In addition, the NS proteins provide resistance of the virus to the anti-viral effects of type I IFNs [15]. The G protein can also modulate components of the innate and adaptive immune response, leading to a reduction in the BRSV specific immune response [10, 64]. These immunomodulating properties might explain why deletion of the genes coding for either of the two proteins leads to attenuation in calves [7, 11]. The failure of natural infection to prevent re-infection [65] might be related to the capacity of BRSV to suppress the host’s immune response.

The complex interaction between virus and immune system is depicted in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure5

Virus infection and interaction with the innate immune system. a Virus passes the mucous layer, binds to sialic acids on the surface of the cell membrane. b Virus and enters the epithelial cell. c The virus replication in the infected cells leads to damage of the cells and to the formation of syncytia (cytopathic effect). d The virus infection triggers an antiviral innate immune response (production of interferon). The NS1 and NS2 protein of BRSV reduce the interferon response. e Macrophages and natural killer cells are attracted and destroy virus infected cells. f The immune response leads to further tissue damage. BRSV and PI3 both enhance this process

Role of the adaptive immune response

The protective immune response against BRSV and BPIV3 involves both humoral (antibody) and cell-mediated immunity with different roles for the two branches. While neutralizing antibodies seem to be a correlate of protection against severe disease, cell-mediated immunity is considered to be essential for virus clearance following acute infection [44] (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure6

Role of humoral and cellular immune response in controling virus infection

The viral proteins that have been most associated with protective antibodies are the major surface glycoproteins G and F of BRSV or HN and F of BPIV3, respectively. Infected cattle develop antibodies directed against these glycoproteins as well as some of the minor viral proteins [30, 63].

As BRSV G protein and the BPIV3 HN protein are the major attachment proteins, neutralizing antibodies directed against them prevent attachment to the cells. The inhibition of haemagglutination by HN specific antibodies contributed to the initial discovery of BPIV3 [66].

Results with HRSV in mice, suggest that G-specific antibodies might be neutralizing the virus, and might be involved in antibody-mediated cellular immune functions [67]. On the other hand, the soluble form of the HRSV G protein has been shown to antagonize antibody-mediated inhibition of virus replication [68].

Anti-F antibodies of BRSV and BPIV3 have been shown to prevent cell penetration and cell fusion [69, 70], but the F protein of BRSV also have epitopes that induce non-neutralizing antibodies, which may enhance complement activation which can be involved in the pathogenesis as well as in recovery from BRSV [71].

Both, under field and experimental conditions it has been shown that presence of neutralizing antibodies (either maternally derived or due to previous infection) does not fully prevent disease but reduces the severity of the disease, both for BRSV [72, 73] and BPIV3 [30, 74]. In an epidemiological study with antibody positive calves, neutralizing antibody levels were inversely related to the severity of disease after infection with BRSV [75]. Interestingly, intratracheal application of bovine monoclonal antibodies directed against the BRSV F protein 24 h prior to challenge infection protected the lungs of gnotobiotic calves from virus infection [70].

A humoral immune response consisting of local mucosal IgA, and systemic IgM and IgG can usually be detected within approximately 1 week after infection with BRSV or BPIV3 [75, 76]. The mucosal antibodies decline to low levels after 6 to 8 weeks, whereas the serum antibodies persist for 3 to 5 months.

A strong secondary immune response against BRSV with mucosal and systemic IgA and mucosal IgM can be seen already 6 days after infection [77].

Re-exposure with BRSV or BPIV3 results in a strong serum and mucosal antibody response. It was noted that high concentrations of mucosal antibodies protect against disease, whereas the serum antibodies reduce the severity of disease once it has occurred [30].

Colostral antibodies provide partial protection against clinical disease. On the other hand, they can hamper the induction of an active humoral immune response after infection or vaccination, but they do not suppress priming of the humoral and cellular immune system as indicated by a rapid response systemic and mucosal IgA response after secondary infection [75].

In several studies, clear antibody responses were measured after vaccination [38, 78], yet no information is available, whether these responses was directly correlated with protection. Moreover, the immune response and level of protection may differ between vaccines depending on the type of vaccine and the route. Results from efficacy studies with live BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines suggest that animals with a low or even undetectable antibody response can be protected [38, 79,80,81], Makoschey et al., unpublished observation) and protection seems rather be correlated to the ability to mount a rapid secondary mucosal IgA response [82] or to the cell mediated immune response [44]. Cell mediated responses can be induced by modified-live, conventional vaccines as well as some inactivated BRSV vaccines [83,84,85].

The mechanisms for initiation of cell mediated immunity against BRSV have been studied quite extensively and comprehensive reviews are available [44, 62]. A few viral proteins have been identified as T cell targets: Epitopes for CD4+ T cells were mapped on the F and G proteins of BRSV [86] while M2, F and N proteins seem to be the most important targets for CD8+ T cells [87].

Following BRSV infection there is an increase in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the lungs [88]. The CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes have been shown to play a major role in the recovery from BRSV infection [89, 90]. Similar observations were made after BPIV3 challenge of previously vaccinated calves: the production of neutrophil chemotactic factors by alveolar macrophages and the resulting neutrophil influx into the lungs occurred more rapidly than in the control animals resulting in a more rapid clearance of the virus [91].

A major difference in the immune response against BRSV and BPIV3 is vaccine-enhanced immunopathology that has been observed in calves vaccinated with certain inactivated BRSV vaccines prior to natural [92] or experimental [93, 94] BRSV infection. Similar observations were made in HRSV infected infants that had been vaccinated with a formalin-inactivated HRSV vaccine and subsequently experienced a natural HRSV infection [95]. Numerous studies, both with HRSV and BRSV suggest that a disbalanced cellular immune response is involved in the pathogenesis of this phenomenon, yet the immunological mechanisms are still not completely understood [44]. Such an immunopathological phenomenon has never been reported for BPIV3.

How to get the right diagnosis?

The importance of early BRD detection is generally acknowledged. Measuring of the body temperature [96, 97], auscultation, ultrasonography [98] and detection of acute phase protein [99] have been described as suitable methods for diagnostics based on clinical signs, yet they do not enable distinction between different respiratory pathogens.

Involvement of BRSV or BPIV3 in an outbreak of BRD can either be determined based on the detection of the virus or by measuring virus-specific antibodies.

Regarding virus detection, it is important to realize that the viruses are only shed during a limited timeframe. BRSV RNA was detected in nasal swab samples starting on day one to day five after experimental infection for up to 4 weeks [100], while previous studies have concluded that viral shedding usually begins later, and lasts for a shorter period [38, 79, 81, 101, 102]. The explanation for this discrepancy is likely related to the difference in detection methods i.e. RNA detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as opposed to virus titration assay in tissue culture in the latter studies. Also, for BPIV3, virus detection in nasal swab samples was positive at an earlier time point and continued for a longer period when tested by PCR as compared to the results of the virus titration in tissue culture (Makoschey et al. unpublished observations).

In the culture method, which could be considered the gold standard, samples are incubated on susceptible cells and virus infection is determined by cytopathic effect or immunostaining using labelled specific antibodies or antiserum. In the case of BPIV3, the culture plates can also be incubated with erythrocytes and subsequently read for haemadsorption.

Due to the nature of the test, the titration method only detects infectious virus particles, while also non-infectious virus particles can lead to a positive PCR result. As both viruses are very labile and easily killed, samples might lose infectivity during transport and storage. Those samples are then found (false) negative in the virus titration assay, but positive in the PCR test. Moreover, also in samples harvested from in vitro cultures BRSV virus titers were significantly lower than RNA copy numbers [103]. As the pattern of values obtained from the two assays over the infection time course correlated closely, the results suggest that, incomplete viral genomes that occur during virus replication might also contribute to the difference between infectious virus titer and RNA copies.

Prior to the widespread application of PCR methods in veterinary diagnostic laboratories, commonly used methods for the detection of BRSV and BPIV3 were fluorescent antibody testing (FAT) on frozen tissue sections [104,105,106], lung lavage samples [107] or nasal swab samples [108, 109] and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) testing of organ homogenates [110]. In general, PCR testing has a better sensitivity than the traditional methods like virus isolation, ELISA and FAT [111, 112]. Currently, different multiplex formats that allow testing of BRSV and BPIV3 together with other agents within the BRD complex have been developed. Some of those are commercially available [113,114,115,116]. The testing is commonly applied on nasal swab samples, transtracheal aspiration or bronchoalveolar lavages (BAL). When comparing different sampling methods, results obtained from nasal swabs or BAL were in moderate agreement [117]. BRSV levels in BAL samples from experimentally infected animals were found to be slightly higher than levels in nasal swab samples taken at the same day (Makoschey et al. unpublished observations). Moreover, BAL samples might provide more reliable results for diagnostics of bacterial infections [118].

When testing calves that have been administered an intranasal vaccine, caution must be taken for the interpretation of results as the virus can be detected for more than a week after vaccination [119, 120] and the signal can be derived from vaccine virus or from a mix of wild type and vaccine virus.

As for other viruses, also for BRSV and BPIV3 the traditional methods of antibody testing by neutralization test, complement fixation and in the case of BPIV3, also haemagglutination inhibition (HI) have been described [106, 121,122,123,124].

Several ELISA tests for detection and quantification of BRSV and BPIV3 antibodies have been described [125,126,127]. The ELISA technique is fast, cost-effective, large numbers of samples can be handled, the method can be standardized and as opposed to virus neutralization test, an antibody ELISA does not require handling of live virus. Moreover, the isotype- and subclass of the antibodies can be determined using the ELISA technique [76, 77, 128].

In naïve animals, primary infection with BRSV or BPIV3 can be confirmed using serum samples collected 5–10 days after the appearance of the clinical signs of disease [76, 77]. However, as the viruses are endemic in most herds, the diagnostic value of single serum samples are highest for IgM and IgA that are indicative of a recent (re-)infection [76].

Several commercially available ELISAs used in routine diagnostics and research can be used in serum or milk, and levels of antibodies in serum correlates well with levels of antibodies in milk in individual cows, although the antibody titers are generally lower in milk than in serum [129]. However, the levels of antibodies in bulk tank milk can remain high for several years, and this limits the ability to use the bulk tank milk to determine evolution of disease within a farm [130].

On the other hand, a negative test result in serum or (bulk milk samples) can be used to exclude BRSV or BPIV3 as potential cause in a BRD outbreak on a particular farm.

In herds with recurrent disease, paired samples might be useful to establish a diagnosis. An increase in titer of at least four-fold is considered indicative for an infection. The fact that calves that become infected in the presence of passively derived antibody may not seroconvert [75] should be taken into consideration for the interpretation of results.

In addition to the diagnostic purposes, antibody testing of serum samples taken from calves at the arrival in a fattening unit can provide useful information for the prediction of the risk to develop BRD later in life [131, 132].

Another application might be the monitoring of the immune response after vaccination. In this case, the type of vaccine must be taken into account. In a direct comparison of an inactivated BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine and a modified live BRSV-Bovine Viral Diarrhoea vaccine, the neutralizing antibody profiles were similar, while the antibody levels measured by ELISA were higher for the group vaccinated with the inactivated vaccine [83]. Also, the route of vaccination influences the antibody response. As mentioned earlier, especially live BRSV vaccines applied via the intranasal route have been shown to be efficacious even in the absence of detectable levels of serum antibodies [38, 79,80,81], Makoschey et al., unpublished observation).

Last but not least, it should be mentioned, that metabolomic profiling might offer new approaches to determine markers for the systemic immune response [133] following virus infection or vaccination.

Measures against the disease

Treatment of sick animals

As for other virus infections, treatment of BRSV and BPIV3 infected animals is mostly limited to supportive measures to keep the affected animals well hydrated and to maintain proper energy and electrolyte balance. If the affected animals do not recover, and the involvement of secondary bacterial infections has been diagnosed, treatment with antimicrobials, for which the bacteria are susceptible, may be required. Furthermore, anti-inflammatory medications can reduce fever, reduce damaging inflammatory response in the lungs and improve the animal’s welfare and thereby feed and water intake. Corticosteroids are not recommended for use in the treatment of BRD due to their immunosuppressive nature. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are preferable. Promising results with a combination of antiviral and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory treatment have recently been obtained in a bovine model of respiratory syncytial virus infection [134].

General preventive measures

Vaccination is the most efficacious preventive measure to control BRSV and BPI3V and will be discussed in more detail below.

In addition, general measures should be taken to minimize risk factors for the development of BRD including ensuring optimized environmental conditions [135] and reduction of stress factors [136].

Basic cleaning and hygiene procedures should be applied to prevent or at least reduce the infection pressure. As both viruses have a low tenacity, they are readily inactivated with common disinfectants.

Direct transmission from infected animals, indirect transmission by individuals visiting farms vectoring the viruses [137] or not providing boots for visitors [138] have been identified as risk factors for inter-herd transmission of BRSV. On the other hand, herds can remain seronegative despite proximity to seropositive herds if herd biosecurity is appropriate [139]. Biosecurity measures are also the most important tool within the Norwegian control program for BRSV and Bovine Coronavirus [140].

Good colostrum management is an important preventative measure as low levels of IgG in general and low levels of BRSV specific antibodies were found to be associated with a higher risk of BRD [131].

Novel approaches to BRD disease control and prevention that are currently investigated are innate immunomodulation [141] and the identification of genes and chromosomal regions that underly genetic variation in disease resistance and response to vaccination. Analysis of the genetic variation of animals in a BRSV infection trial suggest that certain motifs in genes related to immunity were associated with high or low antibody and T cell responders [142]. Eventually, this research could lead to selection of animals that are more resistant to disease caused by BRSV and BPIV3 and open new ways to improve vaccine efficacy.

Vaccination against BRSV and BPIV3

Traditional vaccines

Shortly after the discovery of BPIV3, the first inactivated vaccines against this virus were developed [143] followed some years later by modified live virus (MLV) vaccines [144].

Due to the observation of disease enhancement in children vaccinated with a formalin-inactivated HRSV vaccine [145] attempts to develop a BRSV vaccine initially focused on live vaccines [146]. Some years later, promising results were achieved with a BRSV vaccine derived from glutaraldehyde-fixed cells, which did not cause disease enhancement, but even provided better protection than two live-attenuated vaccines tested in the same study [147]. Several inactivated BRSV vaccines have been available and widely used since then, and only incidentally severe courses of BRSV infection have been reported in calves that had previously been vaccinated with formalin-inactivated vaccines [93, 148].

An incident of vaccine associated disease enhancement has also been reported for a beta-propriolactone-inactivated, alum- and saponin-adjuvanted BRSV vaccine [92]. The results from a field trial with a similarly formulated vaccine of which the identity was not disclosed suggested a failure to protect and this vaccine was withdrawn from the market in the late 1990’s [53].

It should be noted that vaccination with a modified live vaccine during the course of a natural infection may also enhance the severity of disease [149].

Interestingly, vaccine associated disease enhancement has only been reported for BRSV and HRSV vaccines, but not for BPIV3 and HPIV3. The immunological mechanisms have not been fully unraveled, but it has been proposed that the inactivation process is able to alter BRSV epitopes and thus the induction of cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity [150] and functional antibodies [151]. This can lead to high levels of non-neutralising antibodies in combination with relatively low levels of neutralising antibodies [148, 152] and increased levels of IgE [153]. Moreover, it has been observed that Interferon gamma production following BRSV infection is reduced in calves previously vaccinated with formalin-inactivated BRSV [154].

Several commercially available live attenuated BRSV and BPIV3 vaccine strains have been obtained using traditional approaches such as passaging in cell culture [146] or selection of temperature-sensitive mutants [78, 155]. In general, the mechanisms of attenuation are unknown, but in a recent study it was shown that transcriptions of cytokines related to fever and inflammation were not upregulated in the nasopharyngeal mucosa after vaccination with a new live attenuated intranasal BRSV-BPIV3 combination vaccine, while these factors were upregulated after infection with BPIV3 field virus [47].

Also, the “Jennerian” approach of using an antigenetically related virus from another species has been tested in the past when calves were vaccinated with a temperature sensitive HRSV strain [147] or a BPIV3 vaccine was evaluated in infants and children [156].

Experimental vaccines

Multiple approaches using contemporary vaccine technologies have been investigated with the intention to develop better vaccines for use in cattle, or to use the bovine viruses in their natural host as model for vaccines against their counterpart in humans. The number of approaches is higher for BRSV compared to BPIV3, probably because improved vaccines for use in young children and elderly people are still needed for HRSV while there is less need for new HPIV3 vaccines.

Subunit vaccines based on the major glycoproteins of BRSV have been tested with good results, both for parenteral [80, 157] and intranasal application [158]. After intranasal application of BPIV3 antigen formulated in nanoparticles, a mucosal IgA response was measured [159], yet protection against infection was not tested.

The development of a reverse genetic system for BRSV [160] enabled the engineering of recombinant viruses. Several viruses lacking one or more proteins induced at least partial protection in calf models [7, 11, 17, 80]. A further development of a BRSV virus lacking the G and the F protein was a chimeric virus in which these proteins were replaced by BPIV3 HA and F protein [8]. Such a virus might potentially be a bivalent vaccine against both, BRSV and BPIV-3, but to our best knowledge, this has not yet been demonstrated in calves.

Promising results with human recombinant RSV-vaccine candidates in which the F glycoprotein is stabilized in its prefusion state could be reproduced with recombinant BRSV in the calf model initially in animals without maternal antibodies [161] and more recently also in animals with maternal antibodies [162].

Last but not least, chimeric vaccinia viruses [163, 164] or bovine herpesviruses [165] expressing BRSV proteins have been developed as vaccine candidates. One major advantage of these viruses for vaccine development would be that they grow much better in cell culture than the BRSV viruses.

Another advantage is that some of these vaccines offer DIVA properties, which allow to differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals by serological testing. Such vaccines would be helpful for monitoring efficacy of biosecurity measures or for countries with BRSV control programs such as Norway.

Although the results obtained with several of the above-mentioned vaccine candidates were promising, none of them clearly outperformed the currently available commercial vaccines with regards to all the requirements for yields, process robustness, safety and efficacy.

Completely novel approaches to vaccine development might become available in the future thanks to the progress in the understanding of host pathways involved in the innate anti-viral response, together with the capability to generate substances that can interfere with these processes [166].

Efficacy testing of commercial vaccines

Prior to commercialization, the efficacy of any new vaccine must be demonstrated, under both experimental and field conditions as prescribed in relevant regulations. Given the multifactorial nature of the disease, it is rather demanding to reproduce clinical signs under experimental conditions [167]. A comprehensive overview of the literature concerning challenge models for BRSV, BPIV3 and other common BRD pathogens was prepared by Grissett and colleagues [168].

In the first infection studies with cell-culture-passaged BRSV only mild disease or no disease at all was observed in the unvaccinated control animals [169], even in colostrum deprived or gnotobiotic calves. The suggestion that the viruses attenuate rapidly upon culture in vitro has been supported by several studies in which clinical signs of respiratory disease were reproduced by inoculation of low-passage BRS virus [20, 170].

Early studies investigated different administration protocols for the BRSV and BPIV3 challenge strains including multiple application [171] and invasive (intratracheal) routes [172, 173], which are not representative of natural transmission. Aerosolization, a delivery method that mimics the natural route of transmission, was found to produce more consistent results [148, 170, 174]. The same method has also been successfully applied in BPIV3 infection studies [175].

Many efficacy studies with commercially available BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines both under experimental and field conditions have been published and comprehensive reviews are available [167, 176]. Most of these studies estimated clinical efficacy from results of experimental challenge studies. Interpretation of the results requires caution as some of the models are not representative for natural exposure.

An important requirement for live BRD vaccines is an early onset of immunity. Studies with a live marker vaccine against Bovine Herpesvirus have shown that the animals were protected as early as 3 days after intranasal vaccination [177]. Studies to determine the onset of immunity of the currently available BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines were hampered by the fact that the commonly applied methods for virus detection in nasal discharge do not discriminate between vaccine and field strains. By consequence, vaccine virus interferes with the detection of wild-type virus if the experimental infection is done too shortly after vaccination. For intranasal BRSV-BPIV3 combination vaccines commercialized in Europe, an onset of immunity was seen 5 days after vaccination with regards to BRSV [175, 178] and 7 [175] or 10 days [155] with regards to BPIV3.

The onset of immunity has also been studied for an inactivated BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine. A single dose was shown to prime the cellular immune response in calves around 2 weeks of age with maternal antibody [85] and provided partial protection against experimental BRSV infection [179], yet complete protection can only be expected after completion of the two-dose vaccination course. Moreover, it should be noted, that not all inactivated BRSV-BPIV3 vaccines have demonstrated protection in face of maternally derived antibodies.

In field studies, efficacy is typically evaluated by general parameters for disease such as mortality, morbidity, treatments and growth rate while no or only limited information is available about the involvement of specific pathogens in the disease outbreak. Several studies in which commercially available MLVs with and without BRSV were compared, indicated a reduction of respiratory disease [180, 181], or improved (milk) production and reproductive parameters [182] in the groups vaccinated with BRSV. In a recent field trial performed with a new BRSV-BPIV3 live vaccine for intranasal use, the prevalence of eight different BRD pathogens was monitored by PCR testing of nasal swab samples. BRSV infection occurred in several farms, and the nasal shedding of BRSV was significantly lower in the vaccinated animals [183].

How to make best use of BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines

In our current production systems young calves are assembled under stressful conditions in high numbers, which at the same time increases the infectious pressure and weakens the immune system of the calves. Early in live, calves depend on the colostral immunity for protection against infectious agents. Unfortunately, the amount of specific maternal antibodies is very variable and the duration of protection by colostral antibodies is difficult to predict. By consequence, vaccines must be applied early in live and have an early onset of immunity to protect those calves that have received low levels of colostral antibodies. On the other hand, the vaccines should also be efficacious in the face of maternal antibodies (IFOMA) to provide immunity to those calves that have received high levels of colostral antibodies.

The first commercially available BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines (live and inactivated) were licensed for parenteral use. The difficulties and opportunities for vaccinating calves IFOMA have recently been reviewed by Windeyer and Gamsjäger [184]. They concluded that parental vaccination IFOMA is unlikely to result in seroconversion, and other immune responses are inconsistent, but the presence of antibodies may be prolonged and immunological memory might be induced. Moreover, reduction of clinical signs was reported by Chamorro and colleagues [185].

The potential advantages of intranasal vaccination with a live vaccine IFOMA by stimulation of a local immune response and priming the systemic immune response prompted Ellis and colleagues to determine the efficacy of a live vaccine for parental delivery after intranasal administration [81]. That study suggested that similar levels of protection were provided by intranasal and parenteral administration. However, it should be noted, that the calves in that study had low levels of colostral antibodies.

Nowadays, several MLV BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines for intranasal application are commercially available. Typically, spraying devices generating a kind of aerosol are required for administration of these vaccines, however, in a recent study with a new BRSV-BPIV3 live vaccine, animals vaccinated without spraying device (directly from the tip of the syringe) were protected against experimental BRSV and BPIV3 infection [186].

An alternative approach to protect the calf early in life is the vaccination of the pregnant dam to achieve higher and more homogenous levels of antibodies in the colostrum [187, 188] and also specific memory cells in the calves [189]. Calves fed colostrum from vaccinated dams were partly protected against BRSV infection [73]. Therefore, cow vaccination in combination with good colostrum management might be considered to complement an active immunisation program against BRD.

Given the involvement of multiple different pathogens in BRD, an important selection criterion for a vaccine is the range of antigens against which protection is provided. Multivalent vaccines have been available since more than three decades [190] and most commercially available BRSV and BPIV3 vaccines contain both viruses together with one or more other viruses and/or bacteria. In comparative field trials an inactivated BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine provided better protection against BRD than MLV BRSV-BPIV combination vaccines [191, 192]. These observations illustrate the fact that BRD outbreaks in the field are often a combination of viral and bacterial pathogens.

Several studies have been performed to investigate the possibility to combine BRSV-BPIV3 vaccines with other vaccines, for example the combination of a live BRSV-BPIV3 vaccine with an M. haemolytica vaccine [193] or the combination of an inactivate BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine with a live Bovine Herpesvirus vaccine [194] or an inactivated vaccine against neonatal diarrhea [195].

A general concern especially with BRSV vaccines is the rather short duration of immunity as compared to other viruses [79, 101, 175, 178, 196]. The observation that re-infections are common [65] suggest that also the immunity following field infection is of relatively short duration. Therefore, re-vaccination of animals is advised to achieve lasting herd immunity [197].

The timing of vaccination/re-vaccination can also have a direct impact on the clinical benefit [198]. In a comparative study, vaccination of calves with an inactivated BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine prior to transport to the fattening units resulted in better protection against BRD than vaccination in the fattening unit [199]. In the current complex economic structure of the cattle industry, cow-calf producers often do not have economic incentive to vaccinate the calves [200]. This might change in the future if technologies to unambiguously identify properly vaccinated animals become available.

Different re- vaccination schedules have been investigated including e.g. the antibody response after a single booster vaccination with an inactivated BRSV-BPIV3-M. haemolytica vaccine given up to 12 months after completion of the primary vaccination course was found to be similar than the levels after the primary vaccination course [201].

Good results in terms of protection against experimental BRSV infection were obtained with a combined vaccination schedule of a primary vaccination course with a live vaccine applied intranasally followed by parental application of an inactivated vaccine [202]. On the other hand, an intranasal booster dose of a BPIV3 following a priming by the subcutaneous route produced slightly better protection than the subcutaneous dose alone [203].

Control of BRSV and BPIV3

In Norway, a program to control BRSV and Bovine Coronavirus was initiated [140] with monitoring and biosecurity measures as the main tools. A similar approach has given good results in the control of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus (BVDV) and Bovine Herpesvirus Type 1 (BHV-1). The success of the latter control programs in Nordic countries had prompted other European countries to also embark in control initiatives for these viruses [204], but in most countries, vaccination is also used as a tool. Initially, the prevalence of BVDV and BHV1 remained more or less constant although vaccines were available. Significant progress in the control of these viruses was only achieved once vaccination was applied widely and in a systematic matter.

Currently, the vaccine coverage for BRSV and BPIV3 is rather low: A survey of cattle farmers in Ireland and the UK revealed that two-thirds of the farmers do not vaccinate at all and only 20% or 7% vaccinate all calves retained/brought onto the farm under 3 and 9 months of age, respectively [205], similar results have been obtained for other countries (Vertenten unpublished data). Such a low vaccination rate is unlikely to lead to a reduction of the prevalence of the two viruses.

On herd level, the best benefit of the vaccines can be achieved with a tailormade herd immunisation program which addresses all relevant herd-specific aspects such as the age distribution and origin of the animals, the epidemiological situation and the level of maternal immunity. For example, early calfhood vaccination is particularly important in herds with poor passive immunity, but it should be taken into consideration, that the immunological changes during the first few weeks of a calf’s life [206] and nutritional deficiencies [207] might negatively affect the level of protection that can be achieved by vaccination.

Conclusion

BRSV and BPIV3 are important pathogens in cattle and related to outbreaks of respiratory disease. The two viruses share a lot of morphological and biological characteristics between each other as well as with their counterparts in humans, HRSV and HPIV3. Intense studies on BRSV and BPIV3 have not only lead to the development of vaccines for use in cattle, but also improved our understanding of the disease in cattle and humans. Based on this knowledge, we can conclude that the viruses BRSV and BPIV3 are only two out of multiple factors that lead to BRD. Especially in some of our production systems where we assemble high numbers of calves from various sources under stressful conditions, the BRD problem can only be solved by a holistic approach in which systematic vaccinations programs, preferably also at the herd of origin are supported by state-of-the-art herd management and biosecurity measures.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

BAL:

Bronchoalveolar Lavage

BHV-1:

Bovine Herpes Virus 1

BPIV3:

Bovine Parainfluenza 3 Virus

BRD:

Bovine Respiratory Disease

BRSV:

Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus

BVDV:

Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus

CD:

Cluster of Differentiation

DIVA:

Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals

ELISA:

Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay

F:

Fusion protein

FAT:

Fluorescent Antibody Technique

G:

G protein

HI:

Haemagglutination Inhibition

HN:

haemagglutinin-neuraminidase

HPIV3:

Human Parainfluenza 3 Virus

HRSV:

Human Respiratory Syncytical Virus

IFN:

Interferon

IFOMA:

In Face Of Maternal Antibodies

IgA:

Immunoglobulin A

IgE:

Immunoglobulin E

IgG:

Immunoglobulin G

IgM:

Immunoglobulin M

IL:

Interleukin

L:

Polymerase protein

M:

Matrix protein

MLV:

Modified Live Virus

N:

Nucleoprotein

NMBU:

Norwegian University of Life Sciences

NS:

Non-Structural

NSAID:

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug

P:

Phosphoprotein

PAM:

Pulmonary Alveolar Macrophages

PCR:

Polymerase Chain Reaction

RNA:

Ribonucleic Acid

mRNA:

messenger RiboNucleic Acid

SH:

Small Hydrophobic Protein

TNF:

Tumor Necrosis Factor

References

  1. 1.

    Rima B, Collins P, Easton A, Fouchier R, Kurath G, Lamb RA, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Pneumoviridae. J Gen Virol. 2017;98(12):2912–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    ICTV. Virus Taxonomy: 2018b Release. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Amarasinghe GK, Bào Y, Basler CF, Bavari S, Beer M, Bejerman N, et al. Taxonomy of the order Mononegavirales: update 2017. Arch Virol. 2017;162(8):2493–504.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hendricks DA, McIntosh K, Patterson JL. Further characterization of the soluble form of the G glycoprotein of respiratory syncytial virus. J Virol. 1988;62(7):2228–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bukreyev A, Yang L, Fricke J, Cheng L, Ward JM, Murphy BR, et al. The secreted form of respiratory syncytial virus G glycoprotein helps the virus evade antibody-mediated restriction of replication by acting as an antigen decoy and through effects on fc receptor-bearing leukocytes. J Virol. 2008;82(24):12191–204.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Karger A, Schmidt U, Buchholz UJ. Recombinant bovine respiratory syncytial virus with deletions of the G or SH genes: G and F proteins binds heparin. J Gen Virol. 2001;82(3):631–40.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Schmidt U, Beyer J, Polster U, Gershwin LJ, Buchholz UJ. Mucosal immunization with live recombinant bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) and recombinant BRSV lacking the envelope glycoprotein G protects against challenge with wild-type BRSV. J Virol. 2002;76(23):12355–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Stope MB, Karger A, Schmidt U, Buchholz UJ. Chimeric bovine respiratory syncytial virus with attachment and fusion glycoproteins replaced by bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 hemagglutinin-neuraminidase and fusion proteins. J Virol. 2001;75(19):9367–77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Carter SD, Dent KC, Atkins E, Foster TL, Verow M, Gorny P, et al. Direct visualization of the small hydrophobic protein of human respiratory syncytial virus reveals the structural basis for membrane permeability. FEBS Lett. 2010;584(13):2786–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Valarcher JF, Taylor G. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection. Vet Res. 2007;38(2):153–80.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Taylor G, Wyld S, Valarcher JF, Guzman E, Thom M, Widdison S, et al. Recombinant bovine respiratory syncytial virus with deletion of the SH gene induces increased apoptosis and pro-inflammatory cytokines in vitro, and is attenuated and induces protective immunity in calves. J Gen Virol. 2014;95(PART 6):1244–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ghildyal R, Ho A, Jans DA. Central role of the respiratory syncytial virus matrix protein in infection. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2006;30(5):692–705.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bermingham A, Collins PL. The M2-2 protein of human respiratory syncytial virus is a regulatory factor involved in the balance between RNA replication and transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(20):11259–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hardy RW, Wertz GW. The product of the respiratory syncytial virus M2 gene ORF1 enhances readthrough of intergenic junctions during viral transcription. J Virol. 1998;72(1):520–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schlender J, Bossert B, Buchholz U, Conzelmann KK. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus nonstructural proteins NS1 and NS2 cooperatively antagonize alpha/beta interferon-induced antiviral response. J Virol. 2000;74(18):8234–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sedeyn K, Schepens B, Saelens X. Respiratory syncytial virus nonstructural proteins 1 and 2: Exceptional disrupters of innate immune responses. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(10):e1007894.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Valarcher JF, Furze J, Wyld S, Cook R, Conzelmann KK, Taylor G. Role of alpha/beta interferons in the attenuation and immunogenicity of recombinant bovine respiratory syncytial viruses lacking NS proteins. J Virol. 2003;77(15):8426–39.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fearns R, Plemper RK. Polymerases of paramyxoviruses and pneumoviruses. Virus Res. 2017;234:87–102.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Deplanche M, Lemaire M, Mirandette C, Bonnet M, Schelcher F, Meyer G. In vivo evidence for quasispecies distributions in the bovine respiratory syncytial virus genome. J Gen Virol. 2007;88(4):1260–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Blodörn K, Hägglund S, Gavier-Widen D, Eléouët JF, Riffault S, Pringle J, et al. A bovine respiratory syncytial virus model with high clinical expression in calves with specific passive immunity. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11(1):1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Larsen LE, Uttenthal A, Arctander P, Tjørnehøj K, Viuff B, Røntved C, et al. Serological and genetic characterisation of bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) indicates that Danish isolates belong to the intermediate subgroup: no evidence of a selective effect on the variability of G protein nucleotide sequence by prior cell culture adaption and passages in cell culture or calves. Vet Microbiol. 1998;62(4):265–79.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Valarcher JF, Schelcher F, Bourhy H. Evolution of bovine respiratory syncytial virus. J Virol. 2000;74(22):10714–28.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Nuijten P, Rooij MV, Vertenten G. A new intranasal BRD vaccine induces protection in the presence of maternally derived antibodies. In: European Bovine Congress: 11–13 September 2019. 's-Hertogenbosch; 2019.

  24. 24.

    Horwood PF, Gravel JL, Mahony TJ. Identification of two distinct bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 genotypes. J Gen Virol. 2008;89(Pt 7):1643–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zhu YM, Shi HF, Gao YR, Xin JQ, Liu NH, Xiang WH, et al. Isolation and genetic characterization of bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 from cattle in China. Vet Microbiol. 2011;149(3–4):446–51.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Veljović L. Isolation and molecular detection of bovine Parainfluenza virus type 3 in cattle in Serbia. Acta Veterinaria Beograd. 2016;66(4):10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Albayrak H, Yazici Z, Ozan E, Tamer C, El Wahed AA, Wehner S, et al. Characterisation of the first bovine parainfluenza virus 3 isolate detected in cattle in Turkey. Vet Sci. 2019;6(2):56.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mars MH, Bruschke CJM, Van Oirschot JT. Airborne transmission of BHV1, BRSV, and BVDV among cattle is possible under experimental conditions. Vet Microbiol. 1999;66(3):197–207.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hägglund S, Svensson C, Emanuelson U, Valarcher JF, Alenius S. Dynamics of virus infections involved in the bovine respiratory disease complex in Swedish dairy herds. Vet J. 2006;172(2):320–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ellis JA. Bovine parainfluenza-3 virus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010;26(3):575–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Valarcher JF, Bourhy H, Lavenu A, Bourges-Abella N, Roth M, Andreoletti O, et al. Persistent infection of B lymphocytes by bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Virology. 2001;291(1):55–67.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    De Jong MCM, Van Der Poel WHM, Kramps JA, Brand A, Van Oirschot JT. Quantitative investigation of population persistence and recurrent outbreaks of bovine respiratory syncytial virus on dairy farms. Am J Vet Res. 1996;57(5):628–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Van der Poel WH, Langedijk JP, Kramps JA, Middel WG, Brand A, Van Oirschot JT. Serological indication for persistence of bovine respiratory syncytial virus in cattle and attempts to detect the virus. Arch Virol. 1997;142(8):1681–96.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Larsen LE, Tjørnehøj K, Viuff B. Extensive sequence divergence among bovine respiratory syncytial viruses isolated during recurrent outbreaks in closed herds. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(11):4222–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bidokhti MR, Traven M, Ohlson A, Zarnegar B, Baule C, Belak S, et al. Phylogenetic analysis of bovine respiratory syncytial viruses from recent outbreaks in feedlot and dairy cattle herds. Arch Virol. 2012;157(4):601–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Viuff B, Uttenthal A, Tegtmeier C, Alexandersen S. Sites of replication of bovine respiratory syncytial virus in naturally infected calves as determined by in situ hybridization. Vet Pathol. 1996;33(4):383–90.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ceribasi AO, Ozkaraca M, Ceribasi S, Ozer H. Histopathologic, immunoperoxidase and immunofluorescent examinations on natural cattle pneumonia originated from Parainfluenza type 3, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus type 3 and Herpesvirus type 1. Rev Med Vet. 2014;165(7–8):201–12.

  38. 38.

    Salt JS, Thevasagayam SJ, Wiseman A, Peters AR. Efficacy of a quadrivalent vaccine against respiratory diseases caused by BHV-1, PI3V, BVDV and BRSV in experimentally infected calves. Vet J. 2007;174(3):616–26.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bryson DG, McNulty MS, McCracken RM, Cush PF. Ultrastructural features of experimental parainfluenza type 3 virus pneumonia in calves. J Comp Pathol. 1983;93(3):397–414.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Adair BM, Bradford HE, Mackie DP, McNulty MS. Effect of macrophages and in vitro infection with parainfluenza type 3 and respiratory syncytial viruses on the mitogenic response of bovine lymphocytes. Am J Vet Res. 1992;53(2):225–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Basaraba RJ, Brown PR, Laegreid WW, Silflow RM, Evermann JF, Leid RW. Suppression of lymphocyte proliferation by parainfluenza virus type 3-infected bovine alveolar macrophages. Immunology. 1993;79(2):179–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Johnston D, Earley B, McCabe MS, Lemon K, Duffy C, McMenamy M, et al. Experimental challenge with bovine respiratory syncytial virus in dairy calves: bronchial lymph node transcriptome response. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):14736.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Jolly S, Detilleux J, Desmecht D. Extensive mast cell degranulation in bovine respiratory syncytial virus-associated paroxystic respiratory distress syndrome. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2004;97(3–4):125–36.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Taylor G. Immunology of bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) in calves. In: World Buiatrics Congress. Sapporo; 2018. p. 11.

  45. 45.

    Antonis AF, de Jong MC, van der Poel WH, van der Most RG, Stockhofe-Zurwieden N, Kimman T, et al. Age-dependent differences in the pathogenesis of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections related to the development of natural immunocompetence. J Gen Virol. 2010;91(Pt 10):2497–506.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ogunbiyi PO, Black WD, Eyre P. Parainfluenza-3 virus-induced enhancement of histamine release from calf lung mast cells – effect of levamisole. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1988;11(4):338–44.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Nuijten P, Cleton N, Jvd L, Makoschey B, Vertenten G. Early activation of the innate immune response after vaccination with a new intranasal. Hertogenbosch: European Bovine Congress: 11–13 September 2019; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sudaryatma PE, Nakamura K, Mekata H, Sekiguchi S, Kubo M, Kobayashi I, et al. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection enhances Pasteurella multocida adherence on respiratory epithelial cells. Vet Microbiol. 2018;220:33–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Babiuk LA, Lawman MJP, Ohmann HB. Viral-bacterial synergistic interaction in respiratory disease. Adv Virus Res. 1988;35:219–49.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kapil S, Basaraba RJ. Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, parainfluenza-3, and respiratory coronavirus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 1997;13(3):455–69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Adair BM, Bradford HE, McNulty MS, Foster JC. Cytotoxic interactions between bovine parainfluenza type 3 virus and bovine alveolar macrophages. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1999;67(3):285–94.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Ellis JA, Philibert H, West K, Clark E, Martin K, Haines D. Fatal pneumonia in adult dairy cattle associated with active infection with bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Can Vet J. 1996;37(2):103–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Larsen LE, Tegtmeier C, Pedersen E. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) pneumonia in beef calf herds despite vaccination. Acta Vet Scand. 2001;42(1):113–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pirie HM, Petrie L, Pringle CR, Allen EM, Kennedy GJ. Acute fatal pneumonia in calves due to respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Rec. 1981;108(19):411–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ciszewski DK, Baker JC, Slocombe RF, Reindel JF, Haines DM, Clark EG. Experimental reproduction of respiratory tract disease with bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Microbiol. 1991;28(1):39–60.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    LeBlanc PH, Baker JC, Gray PR, Robinson NE, Derksen FJ. Effects of bovine respiratory syncytial virus on airway function in neonatal calves. Am J Vet Res. 1991;52(9):1401–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Brodersen BW. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010;26(2):323–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Verhoeff J, van Nieuwstadt AP. BRS virus, PI3 virus and BHV1 infections of young stock on self-contained dairy farms: epidemiological and clinical findings. Vet Rec. 1984;114(12):288–93.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Gershwin LJ, Van Eenennaam AL, Anderson ML, McEligot HA, Shao MX, Toaff-Rosenstein R, et al. Single pathogen challenge with agents of the bovine respiratory disease complex. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142479.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Borchers AT, Chang C, Gershwin ME, Gershwin LJ. Respiratory syncytial virus - a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2013;45(3):331–79.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Cortjens B, de Jong R, Bonsing JG, van Woensel JBM, Bem RA, Antonis AFG. Human respiratory syncytial virus infection in the pre-clinical calf model. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;65:213–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Guzman E, Taylor G. Immunology of bovine respiratory syncytial virus in calves. Mol Immunol. 2015;66(1):48–56.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Gershwin LJ. Immunology of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection of cattle. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;35(3):253–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Pollock N, Taylor G, Jobe F, Guzman E. Modulation of the transcription factor NF-κB in antigen-presenting cells by bovine respiratory syncytial virus small hydrophobic protein. J Gen Virol. 2017;98(7):1587–99.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Van der Poel WH, Kramps JA, Middel WG, Van Oirschot JT, Brand A. Dynamics of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections: a longitudinal epidemiological study in dairy herds. Arch Virol. 1993;133(3–4):309–21.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Reisinger RC, Heddleston KL, Manthei CA. A myxovirus (SF-4) associated with shipping fever of cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1959;135(3):147–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Taylor G, Stott EJ, Bew M, Fernie BF, Cote PJ, Collins AP, et al. Monoclonal antibodies protect against respiratory syncytial virus infection in mice. Immunology. 1984;52(1):137–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Bukreyev A, Yang L, Collins PL. The secreted g protein of human respiratory syncytial virus antagonizes antibody-mediated restriction of replication involving macrophages and complement. J Virol. 2012;86(19):10880–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Merz DC, Scheid A, Choppin PW. Importance of antibodies to the fusion glycoprotein of paramyxoviruses in the prevention of spread of infection. J Exp Med. 1980;151(2):275–88.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Thomas LH, Cook RS, Wyld SG, Furze JM, Taylor G. Passive protection of gnotobiotic calves using monoclonal antibodies directed at different epitopes on the fusion protein of bovine respiratory syncytial virus. J Infect Dis. 1998;177(4):874–80.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kimman TG, Daha MR, Brinkhof JM, Westenbrink F. Activation of complement by bovine respiratory syncytial virus-infected cells. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1989;21(3–4):311–25.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Mohanty SB, Rockemann DD, Davidson JP, Sharabrin OI, Forst SM. Effect of vaccinal serum antibodies on bovine respiratory syncytial viral infection in calves. Am J Vet Res. 1981;42(5):881–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Cassard H, Cuquemelle A, Salem E, Ronsin L, Lallar Y, Makoschey B, et al. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) protection provided by BRSV-maternal antibodies from Bovilis Bovigrip® vaccinated cows. Rome: European Buiatric Forum; 2015. p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Caldow GL, Edwards S, Peters AR, Nixon P, Ibata G, Sayers R. Associations between viral infections and respiratory disease in artificially reared calves. Vet Rec. 1993;133(4):85–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Kimman TG, Zimmer GM, Westenbrink F, Mars J, van Leeuwen E. Epidemiological study of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections in calves: influence of maternal antibodies on the outcome of disease. Vet Rec. 1988;123(4):104–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Graham DA, Mawhinney KA, German A, Foster JC, Adair BM, Merza M. Isotype- and subclass-specific responses to infection and reinfection with parainfluenza-3 virus: comparison of the diagnostic potential of ELISAs detecting seroconversion and specific IgM and IgA. J Vet Diagn Investig. 1999;11(2):127–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Kimman TG, Westenbrink F, Schreuder BE, Straver PJ. Local and systemic antibody response to bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection and reinfection in calves with and without maternal antibodies. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25(6):1097–106.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Bryson DG, Adair BM, McNulty MS, McAliskey M, Bradford HE, Allan GM, et al. Studies on the efficacy of intranasal vaccination for the prevention of experimentally induced parainfluenza type 3 virus pneumonia in calves. Vet Rec. 1999;145(2):33–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Vangeel I, Antonis AFG, Fluess M, Riegler L, Peters AR, Harmeyer SS. Efficacy of a modified live intranasal bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in 3-week-old calves experimentally challenged with BRSV. Vet J. 2007;174(3):627–35.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Blodörn K, Hägglund S, Fix J, Dubuquoy C, Makabi-Panzu B, Thom M, et al. Vaccine safety and efficacy evaluation of a recombinant Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus (BRSV) with deletion of the SH gene and subunit vaccines based on recombinant human RSV proteins: N-nanorings, P and M2–1, in calves with maternal antibodies. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100392.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Ellis J, Gow S, West K, Waldner C, Rhodes C, Mutwiri G, et al. Response of calves to challenge exposure with virulent bovine respiratory syncytial virus following intranasal administration of vaccines formulated for parenteral administration. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;230(2):233–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Frank GH, Marshall RG. Relationship of serum and nasal secretion-neutralizing antibodies in protection of calves against parainfluenza-3 virus. Am J Vet Res. 1971;32(11):1707–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Kerkhofs P, Tignon M, Petry H, Mawhinney I, Sustronck B. Immune responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) following use of an inactivated BRSV-PI3-Mannheimia haemolytica vaccine and a modified live BRSV-BVDV vaccine. Vet J. 2004;167(2):208–10.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Sandbulte MR, Roth JA. Priming of multiple T cell subsets by modified-live and inactivated bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccines. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2003;95(3–4):123–33.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    van der Sluijs MTW, Kuhn EM, Makoschey B. A single vaccination with an inactivated bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine primes the cellular immune response in calves with maternal antibody. BMC Vet Res. 2010;6:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Fogg MH, Parsons KR, Thomas LH, Taylor G. Identification of CD4+ T cell epitopes on the fusion (F) and attachment (G) proteins of bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV). Vaccine. 2001;19(23–24):3226–40.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Cherrie AH, Anderson K, Wertz GW, Openshaw PJ. Human cytotoxic T cells stimulated by antigen on dendritic cells recognize the N, SH, F, M, 22K, and 1b proteins of respiratory syncytial virus. J Virol. 1992;66(4):2102–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Antonis AFG, Claassen EAW, Hensen EJ, Groot RJD, Groot-Mijnes JDFD, Schrijver RS, et al. Kinetics of antiviral CD8 T cell responses during primary and post-vaccination secondary bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection. Vaccine. 2006;24(10):1551–61.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Gaddum RM, Cook RS, Thomas LH, Taylor G. Primary cytotoxic T-cell responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus in calves. Immunology. 1996;88(3):421–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Gaddum RM, Cook RS, Furze JM, Ellis SA, Taylor G. Recognition of bovine respiratory syncytial virus proteins by bovine CD8+ T lymphocytes. Immunology. 2003;108(2):220–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Adair BM, Bradford HE, Bryson DG, Foster JC, McNulty MS. Effect of parainfluenza-3 virus challenge on cell-mediated immune function in parainfluenza-3 vaccinated and non-vaccinated calves. Res Vet Sci. 2000;68(2):197–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Schreiber P, Matheise JP, Dessy F, Heimann M, Letesson JJ, Coppe P, et al. High mortality rate associated with bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) infection in Belgian white blue calves previously vaccinated with an inactivated BRSV vaccine. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2000;47(7):535–50.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Antonis AF, Schrijver RS, Daus F, Steverink PJ, Stockhofe N, Hensen EJ, et al. Vaccine-induced immunopathology during bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection: exploring the parameters of pathogenesis. J Virol. 2003;77(22):12067–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Gershwin LJ, Schelegle ES, Gunther RA, Anderson ML, Woolums AR, Larochelle DR, et al. A bovine model of vaccine enhanced respiratory syncytial virus pathophysiology. Vaccine. 1998;16(11–12):1225–36.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Kim HW, Canchola JG, Brandt CD, Pyles G, Chanock RM, Jensen K, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus disease in infants despite prior administration of antigenic inactivated vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89(4):422–34.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Jaddoa MA, Al-Jumaily AA, Gonzalez LA, Cuthbertson H. Automatic temperature measurement for hot spots in face region of cattle using infrared thermography. In: 16th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, ICINCO 2019: SciTePress; 2019. p. 196–201.

  97. 97.

    Timsit E, Assié S, Quiniou R, Seegers H, Bareille N. Early detection of bovine respiratory disease in young bulls using reticulo-rumen temperature boluses. Vet J. 2011;190(1):136–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Pardon B, Buczinski S, Deprez PR. Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings. Vet Rec. 2019;185(4):109.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Joshi V, Gupta VK, Bhanuprakash AG, Mandal RSK, Dimri U, Ajith Y. Haptoglobin and serum amyloid a as putative biomarker candidates of naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease in dairy calves. Microb Pathog. 2018;116:33–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Klem TB, Sjurseth SK, Sviland S, Gjerset B, Myrmel M, Stokstad M. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus in experimentally exposed and rechallenged calves; viral shedding related to clinical signs and the potential for transmission. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):156.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Peters AR, Thevasagayam SJ, Wiseman A, Salt JS. Duration of immunity of a quadrivalent vaccine against respiratory diseases caused by BHV-1, PI3V, BVDV, and BRSV in experimentally infected calves. Prev Vet Med. 2004;66(1–4):63–77.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Xue W, Ellis J, Mattick D, Smith L, Brady R, Trigo E. Immunogenicity of a modified-live virus vaccine against bovine viral diarrhea virus types 1 and 2, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus, bovine parainfluenza-3 virus, and bovine respiratory syncytial virus when administered intranasally in young calves. Vaccine. 2010;28(22):3784–92.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Achenbach JE, Topliff CL, Vassilev VB, Donis RO, Eskridge KM, Kelling CL: Detection and quantitation of bovine respiratory syncytial virus using real-time quantitative RT-PCR and quantitative competitive RT-PCR assays. J Virol Methods 2004;121(1):1–6.

  104. 104.

    Thomas LH, Stott EJ. Diagnosis of respiratory syncytial virus infection in the bovine respiratory tract by immunofluorescence. Vet Rec. 1981;108(20):432–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Haines DM, Kendall JC, Remenda BW, Breker-Klassen MM. Monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies for immunohistochemical detection of bovine parainfluenza type 3 virus in frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. J Vet Diagn Investig. 1992;4(4):393–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Wellemans G. Laboratory diagnosis methods for bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Res Commun. 1977;1(1):179–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Kimman TG, Zimmer GM, Straver PJ, de Leeuw PW. Diagnosis of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections improved by virus detection in lung lavage samples. Am J Vet Res. 1986;47(1):143–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Gabathuler R, Boller H, Gabathuler K, Hess RO, Kocherhans R, Wyler R. Infectious respiratory tract diseases in cattle in the winter of 1985/86: detection of infection by bovine respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus type 3 by immunofluorescence in nasal swab samples and by antibody titer increase in serum (ELISA). Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 1987;129(9):457–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Hemmatzadeh F, Haghighi MS. Comparison of fluorescent antibody test and virus isolation to detect bovine Para influenza virus type 3. Indian Vet J. 2007;84(1):10–2.

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Quinting B, Robert B, Letellier C, Boxus M, Kerkhofs P, Schynts F, et al. Development of a 1-Step enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay for the rapid diagnosis of bovine respiratory syncytial virus in postmortem specimens. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2007;19(3):238–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Timsit E, Maingourd C, Le Drean E, Belloc C, Seegers H, Douart A, et al. Evaluation of a commercial real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction kit for the diagnosis of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2010;22(2):238–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Thonur L, Maley M, Gilray J, Crook T, Laming E, Turnbull D, et al. One-step multiplex real time RT-PCR for the detection of bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine herpesvirus 1 and bovine parainfluenza virus 3. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Paller T, Hostnik P, Pogacnik M, Toplak I. The prevalence of ten pathogens detected by a real-time PCR method in nasal swab samples collected from live cattle with respiratory disease. Slovenian Vet Res. 2017;54(3):101–7.

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Horwood PF, Mahony TJ. Multiplex real-time RT-PCR detection of three viruses associated with the bovine respiratory disease complex. J Virol Methods. 2011;171(2):360–3.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Liu Z, Li J, Liu Z, Li J, Li Z, Wang C, et al. Development of a nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for detection of bovine respiratory syncytial virus. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Pansri P, Katholm J, Krogh KM, Aagaard AK, Schmidt LMB, Kudirkiene E, et al. Evaluation of novel multiplex qPCR assays for diagnosis of pathogens associated with the bovine respiratory disease complex. Vet J. 2020;256:105425.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Doyle D, Credille B, Lehenbauer TW, Berghaus R, Aly SS, Champagne J, et al. Agreement among 4 sampling methods to identify respiratory pathogens in dairy calves with acute bovine respiratory disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2017;31(3):954–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Van Driessche L, Valgaeren BR, Gille L, Boyen F, Ducatelle R, Haesebrouck F, et al. A deep nasopharyngeal swab versus nonendoscopic Bronchoalveolar lavage for isolation of bacterial pathogens from Preweaned calves with respiratory disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2017;31(3):946–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Timsit E, Le Drean E, Maingourd C, Belloc C, Guatteo R, Bareille N, et al. Detection by real-time RT-PCR of a bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in calves vaccinated intranasally. Vet Rec. 2009;165(8):230–3.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Walz PH, Newcomer BW, Riddell KP, Scruggs DW, Cortese VS. Virus detection by PCR following vaccination of naive calves with intranasal or injectable multivalent modified-live viral vaccines. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2017;29(5):628–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Schaal E, Ernst H, Riedel F, Kraeber A. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Anwendbarkeit der Komplementbindungsreaktion (KBR) und des Serumneutralisationstestes (NT) zur Diagnose der Parainfluenza-3 (PI-3)-Infektion des Rindes. J Vet Med Ser B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 1969;16(7):608–19.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Trybała E, Wiśniewski J, Larski Z. An evaluation of four serological tests for the detection of antibodies to bovine parainfluenza virus type 3. Acta Vet Hung. 1989;37(4):365–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Underwood WJ, McCallum Q, Velicer LF, Mufson MA, Baker JC. Production and characterization of monoclonal antibodies to bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Microbiol. 1995;43(2–3):261–74.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Westenbrink F, Brinkhof JMA, Straver PJ, Quak J, De Leeuw PW. Comparison of a newly developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with complement fixation and neutralisation tests for serology of bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections. Res Vet Sci. 1985;38(3):334–40.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Florent G, De Marneffe C. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay used to monitor serum antibodies to bovine respiratory disease viruses. Vet Microbiol. 1986;11(4):309–17.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Assaf R, Montpetit C, Marsolais G. Serology of bovine parainfluenza virus type 3: comparison of the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition. Can J Comp Med. 1983;47(2):140–2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Yang Y, Wang FX, Sun N, Cao L, Zhang SQ, Zhu HW, et al. Development and evaluation of two truncated recombinant NP antigen-based indirect ELISAs for detection of bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 antibodies in cattle. J Virol Methods. 2015;222:47–54.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Florent G, Wiseman A. An IgM specific ELISA for the serodiagnosis of viral bovine respiratory infections. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990;13(4):203–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Ohlson A, Blanco-Penedo I, Fall N. Comparison of bovine coronavirus-specific and bovine respiratory syncytial virus-specific antibodies in serum versus milk samples detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2014;26(1):113–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Klem TB, Tollersrud T, Osteras O, Stokstad M. Association between the level of antibodies in bulk tank milk and bovine respiratory syncytial virus exposure in the herd. Vet Rec. 2014;175(2):47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Pardon B, Alliët J, Boone R, Roelandt S, Valgaeren B, Deprez P. Prediction of respiratory disease and diarrhea in veal calves based on immunoglobulin levels and the serostatus for respiratory pathogens measured at arrival. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120(2):169–76.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Assié S, Seegers H, Makoschey B, Désirébousquié L, Bareille N. Exposure to pathogens and incidence of respiratory disease in young bulls on their arrival at fattening operations in France. Vet Rec. 2009;165(7):195–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Gray DW, Welsh MD, Doherty S, Mansoor F, Chevallier OP, Elliott CT, et al. Identification of systemic immune response markers through metabolomic profiling of plasma from calves given an intra-nasally delivered respiratory vaccine. Vet Res. 2015;46(1):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Walsh P, Lebedev M, McEligot H, Mutua V, Bang H, Gershwin LJ. A randomized controlled trial of a combination of antiviral and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory treatment in a bovine model of respiratory syncytial virus infection. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0230245.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Engelken TJ. How does housing influence bovine respiratory disease in confinement cow-calf operations? Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2020;36(2):375–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Sgoifo Rossi CA. Determination and assessment of BRD risk factors in newly received beef cattle. Large Animal Rev. 2013;19(7).

  137. 137.

    Elvander M. Severe respiratory disease in dairy cows caused by infection with bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Rec. 1996;138(5):101–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Ohlson A, Heuer C, Lockhart C, Traven M, Emanuelson U, Alenius S. Risk factors for seropositivity to bovine coronavirus and bovine respiratory syncytial virus in dairy herds. Vet Rec. 2010;167(6):201–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Klem TB, Gulliksen SM, Lie KI, Loken T, Osteras O, Stokstad M. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus: infection dynamics within and between herds. Vet Rec. 2013;173(19):476.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Stokstad M, Klem TB, Myrmel M, Oma VS, Toftaker I, Østerås O, et al. Using biosecurity measures to combat respiratory disease in cattle: the Norwegian control program for bovine respiratory syncytial virus and bovine coronavirus. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:167.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    McGill JL, Sacco RE. The immunology of bovine respiratory disease: recent advancements. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2020.

  142. 142.

    Glass EJ, Baxter R, Leach RJ, Jann OC. Genes controlling vaccine responses and disease resistance to respiratory viral pathogens in cattle. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2012;148(1–2):90–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    King NB, Gale C. Studies on myxovirus parainfluenza-3 vaccine for prevention of shipping fever in cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1963;142:881–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Gutekunst DE, Paton IM, Volenec FJ. Parainfluenza-3 vaccine in cattle: comparative efficacy of intranasal and intramuscular routes. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1969;155(12):1879–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Kapikian AZ, Mitchell RH, Chanock RM, Shvedoff RA, Stewart CE. An epidemiologic study of altered clinical reactivity to respiratory syncytial (RS) virus infection in children previously vaccinated with an inactivated RS virus vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969;89(4):405–21.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Wellemans G, Van OpdenBosch E, Boucque C, Leunen J, Strobbe R. Vaccination des bovins contre le virus respiratoire syncytial (RSB) au moyen d'une souche atténuée. Ann Med Vet. 1978;122:527–35.

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Stott EJ, Thomas LH, Taylor G, Collins AP, Jebbett J, Crouch S. A comparison of three vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus in calves. J Hyg. 1984;93(2):251–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    West K, Petrie L, Haines DM, Konoby C, Clark EG, Martin K, et al. The effect of formalin-inactivated vaccine on respiratory disease associated with bovine respiratory syncytial virus infection in calves. Vaccine. 1999;17(7–8):809–20.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Kimman TG, Sol J, Westenbrink F, Straver PJ. A severe outbreak of respiratory tract disease associated with bovine respiratory syncytial virus probably enhanced by vaccination with modified live vaccine. Vet Q. 1989;11(4):250–3.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Woolums AR, Gunther RA, McArthur-Vaughan K, Anderson ML, Omlor A, Boyle GA, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity and cytokine expression in calves vaccinated with formalin-inactivated bovine respiratory syncytial virus prior to challenge. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;27(1):57–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    West K, Ellis J. Functional analysis of antibody responses of feedlot cattle to bovine respiratory syncytial virus following vaccination with mixed vaccines. Can J Vet Res. 1997;61(1):28–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Ellis JA, Russell H, Cavender J, Haven TR. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus-specific immune responses in cattle following immunization with modified-live and inactivated vaccines. Analysis of the specificity and activity of serum antibodies. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1992;34(1–2):35–45.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Kalina WV, Woolums AR, Berghaus RD, Gershwin LJ. Formalin-inactivated bovine RSV vaccine enhances a Th2 mediated immune response in infected cattle. Vaccine. 2004;22(11–12):1465–74.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Woolums AR, Singer RS, Boyle GA, Gershwin LJ. Interferon gamma production during bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) infection is diminished in calves vaccinated with formalin-inactivated BRSV. Vaccine. 1999;17(11–12):1293–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Vangeel I, Ioannou F, Riegler L, Salt JS, Harmeyer SS. Efficacy of an intranasal modified live bovine respiratory syncytial virus and temperature-sensitive parainfluenza type 3 virus vaccine in 3-week-old calves experimentally challenged with PI3V. Vet J. 2009;179(1):101–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Karron RA, Wright PF, Hall SL, Makhene M, Thompson J, Burns BA, et al. A live attenuated bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 vaccine is safe, infectious, immunogenic, and phenotypically stable in infants and children. J Infect Dis. 1995;171(5):1107–14.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Hägglund S, Hu KF, Larsen LE, Hakhverdyan M, Valarcher JF, Taylor G, et al. Bovine respiratory syncytial virus ISCOMs - protection in the presence of maternal antibodies. Vaccine. 2004;23(5):646–55.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Kavanagh OV, Adair BM, Welsh M, Earley B. Immunogenetic responses in calves to intranasal delivery of bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) epitopes encapsulated in poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) microparticles. Res Vet Sci. 2013;95(2):786–93.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Mansoor F, Earley B, Cassidy JP, Markey B, Doherty S, Welsh MD. Comparing the immune response to a novel intranasal nanoparticle PLGA vaccine and a commercial BPI3V vaccine in dairy calves. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11(1):1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Conzelmann KK. Nonsegmented negative-strand RNA viruses: genetics and manipulation of viral genomes. Ann Rev Genet. 1998;32:123–62.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Zhang B, Chen L, Silacci C, Thom M, Boyington JC, Druz A, et al. Protection of calves by a prefusion-stabilized bovine RSV F vaccine. NPJ Vaccines. 2017;2(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Riffault S, Hägglund S, Guzman E, Näslund K, Jouneau L, Dubuquoy C, et al. A single shot pre-fusion-stabilized bovine rsv f vaccine is safe and effective in newborn calves with maternally derived antibodies. Vaccines. 2020;8(2):231.

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Taylor G, Thomas LH, Furze JM, Cook RS, Wyld SG, Lerch R, et al. Recombinant vaccinia viruses expressing the F, G or N, but not the M2, protein of bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) induce resistance to BRSV challenge in the calf and protect against the development of pneumonic lesions. J Gen Virol. 1997;78(12):3195–206.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Taylor G, Thom M, Capone S, Pierantoni A, Guzman E, Herbert R, et al. Efficacy of a virus-vectored vaccine against human and bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(300):300ra127.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Taylor G, Rijsewijk FAM, Thomas LH, Wyld SG, Gaddum RM, Cook RS, et al. Resistance to bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) induced in calves by a recombinant bovine herpesvirus-1 expressing the attachment glycoprotein of BRSV. J Gen Virol. 1998;79(7):1759–67.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Sun Y, López CB. The innate immune response to RSV: advances in our understanding of critical viral and host factors. Vaccine. 2017;35(3):481–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Ellis JA. How efficacious are vaccines against bovine respiratory syncytial virus in cattle? Vet Microbiol. 2017;206:59–68.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Grissett GP, White BJ, Larson RL. Structured literature review of responses of cattle to viral and bacterial pathogens causing bovine respiratory disease complex. J Vet Intern Med. 2015;29(3):770–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Belknap EB, Ciszewski DK, Baker JC. Experimental respiratory syncytial virus infection in calves and lambs. J Vet Diagn Investig. 1995;7(2):285–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    van der Poel WHM, Schrijver RS, Middel WGJ, Kramps JA, Brand A, Van Oirschot JT. Experimental reproduction of respiratory disease in calves with non-cell-culture-passaged bovine respiratory syncytial virus. Vet Q. 1996;18(3):81–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Bryson DG, McNulty MS, Ball HJ, Neill SD, Connor TJ, Cush PF. The experimental production of pneumonia in calves by intranasal inoculation of parainfluenza type III virus. Vet Rec. 1979;105(25–26):566–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Bryson DG, McNulty MS, Logan EF, Cush PF. Respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia in young calves: clinical and pathologic findings. Am J Vet Res. 1983;44(9):1648–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Belknap EB, Baker JC, Patterson JS, Walker RD, Haines DM, Clark EG. The role of passive immunity in bovine respiratory syncytial virus-infected calves. J Infect Dis. 1991;163(3):470–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Ellis JA, West KH, Waldner C, Rhodes C. Efficacy of a saponin-adjuvanted inactivated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in calves. Can Vet J. 2005;46(2):155–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Nuijten P, Cleton N, Loop JV, Makoschey B, Vertenten G. Onset and duration of immunity after vaccination with a new intranasal BRD vaccine in young calves. Hertogenbosch: European Bovine Congress: 11–13 September 2019; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Theurer ME, Larson RL, White BJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of commercially available vaccines against bovine herpesvirus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, and parainfluenza type 3 virus for mitigation of bovine respiratory disease complex in cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015;246(1):126–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Makoschey B, Keil GM. Early immunity induced by a glycoprotein E-negative vaccine for infectious bovine rhinotracheitis. Vet Rec. 2000;147(7):189–91.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Vangeel I, Antonis AFG, Fluess M, Peters AR, Harmeyer SS. Efficacy of a modified live intranasal bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine in three-week-old calves experimentally challenged with BRSV. Cattle Pract. 2005;13(3):263–71.

    Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Mawhinney IC, Burrows MR. Protection against bovine respiratory syncytial virus challenge following a single dose of vaccine in young calves with maternal antibody. Vet Rec. 2005;156(5):139–43.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    MacGregor S, Wray MI. The effect of bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccination on health, feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of feeder cattle. Bovine Pract. 2004;38:162–70.

    Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Van Donkersgoed J, Janzen ED, Townsend HG, Durham PJ. Five field trials on the efficacy of a bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine. Can Vet J. 1990;31(2):93–100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Cortese V. Milk production and reproductive performance in dairy cows given bovine respiratory syncytial virus vaccine prior to parturition. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997;210(12):1779–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Nuijten P, Sander B, Zschiesche E, Vertenten G. Field efficacy trials with a new intranasal BRD vaccine. Hertogenbosch: European Bovine Congress: 11–13 September 2019. p. 2019.

  184. 184.

    Windeyer MC, Gamsjäger L. Vaccinating calves in the face of maternal antibodies: challenges and opportunities. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2019;35(3):557–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Chamorro MF, Woolums A, Walz PH. Vaccination of calves against common respiratory viruses in the face of maternally derived antibodies (IFOMA). Anim Health Res Rev. 2016;17(2):79–84.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Nuijten P, Loop JV, Rooij MV, Makoschey B, Vertenten G. Intranasal application of a new BRD vaccine is efficacious with or without spraying device. Hertogenbosch: European Bovine Congress: 11–13 September 2019; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Makoschey B, Brunner R, Förster C, Stemme K, Heckert HP, König M. Effect of cow vaccination against BRSV and PI3 on immune status ante partum and the transfer of colostral antibodies to their calves. Tierarztl Umsch. 2011;66(7–8):296–302.

    Google Scholar 

  188. 188.

    Dudek K, Bednarek D, Ayling RD, Szacawa E. Stimulation and analysis of the immune response in calves from vaccinated pregnant cows. Res Vet Sci. 2014;97(1):32–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Ellis JA, Hassard LE, Cortese VS, Morley PS. Effects of perinatal vaccination on humoral and cellular immune responses in cows and young calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996;208(3):393–400.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Howard CJ, Stott EJ, Thomas LH, Gourlay RN, Taylor G. Protection against respiratory disease in calves induced by vaccines containing respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza type 3 virus, mycoplasma bovis and M dispar. Vet Rec. 1987;121(16):372–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  191. 191.

    Makoschey B, Bielsa JM, Oliviero L, Roy O, Pillet F, Dufe D, et al. Field efficacy of combination vaccines against bovine respiratory pathogens in calves. Acta Vet Hung. 2008;56(4):485–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    Vahl HA, Bekman H, van Riel J. Report of a veal calf vaccination study. The Netherlands: Dutch Product Board Livestock and Meat (PVV); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Stokka GS, Neville B, Seeger JT, Cortese VS, Gaspers JJ. Serological effect of two concurrent IBRV BVDV, BRSV, PI3V, and Manheimia haemolytica vaccination protocols and time interval between the first and second dose on the subsequent serological response to the BRSV and M. haemolytica fractions in suckling beef calves. Bov Pract. 2016;50:21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Makoschey B, Chanter N, Reddick DA. Comprehensive protection against all important primary pathogens within the bovine respiratory disease complex by combination of two vaccines. Prakt Tierarzt. 2006;87(10):819–26.

    Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Makoschey B, Fraser S. Concurrent administration of two multi-valent inactivated vaccines to pregnant cattle did not alter the safety or serological response. Bilbao: European Buiatrics Forum: 4th - 6th October 2017; 2017. p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    Philippe-Reversat C, Homer D, Hamers C, Brunet S, Huňady M. Duration of immunity of a four-valent vaccine against bovine respiratory diseases. Acta Vet Brno. 2017;86(4):325–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Cavirani S. Immunization of calves and herd immunity to bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC). Large Animal Rev. 2019;25(1):17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    Richeson JT, Falkner TR. Bovine respiratory disease vaccination: what is the effect of timing? Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2020;36(2):473–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    Tresse C, Risson K, Bendailh F, Makoschey B, Oliviero L. Comparison of different vaccination protocols against bovine respiratory disease complex in fattening units. Budapest: World Buiatrics Congress; 2008. p. 93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Peel DS. The effect of market forces on bovine respiratory disease. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2020;36(2):497–508.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    Makoschey B, Laar P. Evaluation of the anamnestic response of BRSV and PI 3 component of Bovilis Bovipast RSP after a single booster at 3, 6 or 12 months post vaccination. Nice: World Buiatrics Congress; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Ellis J, Gow S, Berenik A, Lacoste S, Erickson N. Comparative efficacy of modified-live and inactivated vaccines in boosting responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus following neonatal mucosal priming of beef calves. Can Vet J. 2018;59(12):1311–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. 203.

    Probert M, Stott EJ, Thomas LH, Collins AP, Jebbett J. An inactivated parainfluenza virus type 3 vaccine: the influence of vaccination regime on the response of calves and their subsequent resistance to challenge. Res Vet Sci. 1978;24(2):222–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Makoschey B, Franken P, Mars JMH, Dubois E, Schroeder C, Thiry J, et al. IBR and BVD control: the key to successful herd management. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2010;123(11–12):516–21.

    Google Scholar 

  205. 205.

    Parrott H. Vaccination rates low despite focus on cutting calf pneumonia. In: Farmers weekly; 2018. 28th Sept 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  206. 206.

    Sherwin G, Down P. Calf immunology and the role of vaccinations in dairy calves. Practice. 2018;40(3):102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. 207.

    McGill JL, Kelly SM, Guerra-Maupome M, Winkley E, Henningson J, Narasimhan B, et al. Vitamin A deficiency impairs the immune response to intranasal vaccination and RSV infection in neonatal calves. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Mavis Irwin for producing Figure 1 of BRSV and BPI3, Jan Dorrestein for creating Figures 5 and 6, Mieke Vrijenhoek, Henriette Roosenboom-Theunissen and Patricia Hunting for providing the histology pictures (4) and Geert Vertenten, Henk Kuijk, Bart Sustronck, Bosco Cowley, Mark Blooi and Piet Nuijten for reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

The review has been funded by MSD Animal Health.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BM and ACB have done the literature review and written the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birgit Makoschey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

BM is an employee of MSD Animal Health, the company that markets the vaccines and pharmaceuticals to prevent and treat BRSV and BPIV3.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Makoschey, B., Berge, A.C. Review on bovine respiratory syncytial virus and bovine parainfluenza – usual suspects in bovine respiratory disease – a narrative review. BMC Vet Res 17, 261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02935-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bovine respiratory syncytial virus
  • BRSV
  • Bovine Parainfluenza
  • BPIV3
  • Bovine respiratory disease
  • BRD
  • Vaccines
  • Review