Scientific Reports of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine

Dynamics of indicators of cellular immunity in puppies depending on the multiplicity of introduction the biological stimulus

M. Broshkov, T. Fedkalova, O. Vishchur
Download article
Abstract

Study of immune-physiological indicators in puppies in critical periods of life, including and for the introduction of a biological stimulus, is an actual direction of modern researches. Actuality is related to a change in immunogenic properties of biological stimulus, a decrease in resistance of animal body, and lack of available methods for assessing the immune status of puppies after vaccination. The purpose of the research was to determine the dynamics of indicators of the cellular link of immunity in puppies depending on the frequency of a biological stimulus introduction. The experiment was conducted on 10 puppies from one brood. Puppies were divided into two groups: I – single vaccination at 51 days of life was done; II - two-time vaccination on the 28th and 51st days of life was done. Biocan DHPPi vaccine (Czech Republic) was used as a biological stimulus. Authors' research established that regardless of the frequency of biological stimulus introduction, a physiological crossover occurs in the body of puppies. However, it should be noted that the biological stimulus affects the quantitative composition of lymphocytes and neutrophils. This is expressed in the fact that in the group of puppies, where the biological stimulus was administered, the increase in the number of neutrophils was 2 times less than in the other group (where it was not administered on the 28th day). Regardless of frequency of the biological stimulus introduction on 70 days, the number of neutrophil granulocytes and lymphocytes in the blood of both groups did not differ significantly and maintained this trend during the next three weeks of observation. It was established that the administration of biological stimulus to puppies causes an immunosuppressive effect on the body, as evidenced by a decrease in the absolute number of neutrophils and lymphocytes in the blood. At the same time, administration of biological stimulus does not affect the phagocytic activity of blood neutrophil granulocytes. Physiological crossover, namely a decrease in the absolute number of lymphocytes and an increase in neutrophils in the blood of puppies occurs after 28 days of life without connection to administration of biological stimulus. Further research is needed to study the feasibility of a two-time administration of the vaccine as a biological stimulus in the studied terms

Keywords

vaccine, phagocytic activity of neutrophils; puppies, immunosuppression, physiological overlap

Suggested citation
Broshkov, M., Fedkalova, T., & Vishchur, O. (2023). Dynamics of indicators of cellular immunity in puppies depending on the multiplicity of introduction the biological stimulus. Scientific Reports of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi2(102).2023.001
References

  1. Broshkov, M.M. (2016). Immune status of dog depending on the physiological features of its correction (Doctoral dissertation, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine).

  2. Degtyarenko, T.V., & Makulkin, R.F. (1997). Biogenic stimulants and immunoreactivity. Odesa: Mayak.

  3. Kazmirchuk, V.I., Kovalchuk, L.V., & Maltsiv, D.V. (2012). Clinical immunology and allergology with age-related features. Kiev: VSI “Meditsina”.

  4. Litster, A., Pressler, B., Volpe, A., & Dubovi, E. (2012). Accuracy of a point-of-care ELISA test kit for predicting the presence of protective canine parvovirus and canine distemper virus antibody concentrations in dogs. Veterinary Journal, 193(2), 363-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.01.027

  5. Schultz, R.D., Thiel, B., Mukhtar, E., Sharp, P., & Larson, L.J. (2010). Age and long-term protective immunity in dogs and cats. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 142 Suppl1, 102-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2009.10.009

  6. Bergmann, M., Freisl, M., Hartmann, K., Speck, S., Truyen, U., Zablotski, Y., Mayr, M., & Wehner, A. (2020). Antibody response to canine parvovirus vaccination in dogs with hyperadrenocorticism treated with trilostane. Vaccines, 8(3), 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030547

  7. Mugnier, A., Mila, H., Guiraud, F., Brévaux, J., Lecarpentier, M., Martinez, C., Mariani, C., Adib-Lesaux, A., Chastant-Maillard, S., Saegerman, C., & Grellet, A. (2019). Birth weight as a risk factor for neonatal mortality: breed-specific approach to identify at-risk puppies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 171, 104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104746

  8. Russell, F.A., Trim, L.K., Savi, F.M., Simon, C., Dargaville, T.R., Hutmacher, D.W., & Beagley, K.W. (2022). Controlled release vaccine implants for delivery of booster immunisations. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 253, 110484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2022.110484

  9. Pereira, M., Valério-Bolas, A., Saraiva-Marques, C., Alexandre-Pires, G., Pereira da Fonseca, I., & Santos-Gomes, G. (2019). Development of dog immune system: from in uterus to elderly. Veterinary Sciences, 6(4), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci6040083

  10. Tizard, I.R. (2021). The administration of vaccines. Vaccines for Veterinarians, 87, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-68299-2.00017-4

  11. Hostetter, S.J. (2012). Neutrophil function in small animals. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice, 42(1), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.09.010

  12. MacGillivray, D.M., & Kollmann, T.R. (2014). The role of environmental factors in modulating immune responses in early life. Frontiers in Immunology, 5, 434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00434

  13. Strasser, A., May, B., Teltscher, A., Wistrela, E., & Niedermüller, H. (2003). Immune modulation following immunization with polyvalent vaccines in dogs. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 94(3-4), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(03)00086-2

  14. Aida, V., Pliasas, V.C., Neasham, P.J., North, J.F., McWhorter, K.L., Glover, S.R., & Kyriakis, C.S. (2021). Novel vaccine technologies in veterinary medicine: a herald to human medicine vaccines. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 654289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.654289

  15. Niewiesk, S. (2014). Maternal antibodies: clinical significance, mechanism of interference with immune responses, and possible vaccination strategies. Frontiers in Immunology, 5, 446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00446

  16. Mila, H., Guiraud, F., Chastant-Maillard, S., et al. (2014). Protection against canine parvovirus type 2 infection in puppies by colostrum-derived antibodies. Journal of Nutritional Science, 3, 54. https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2014.57

  17. Schultz, R.D. (2006). Duration of immunity for canine and feline vaccines: a review. Veterinary Microbiology, 117(1), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.04.013

  18. Day, M.J., Horzinek, M.C., Schultz, R.D., Squires, R.A., & Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) (2016). WSAVA guidelines for the vaccination of dogs and cats. The Journal of Small Animal Practice, 57(1), E1-E45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.2_12431