Prevalence of Antibody to Bovine Herpes Virus-1 (BHV-1) in Cattle

Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis is worldwide in distribution caused by bovine herpes virus-1 (BHV-1), however, IBR was reported for the first time in India by Mehrotra et al. (1976). It is one of the most prevalent respiratory and reproductive viral disease of cattle. Sinha et al. (2003) and Malmarugan et al. (2004) reported the IBR prevalence of 2.75 per cent and 81.0 per cent in buffaloes respectively in India. Renukaradhya et al.(1996) reported the sero-prevalence of 50.9 per cent and 52.5 per cent in cattle and buffaloes respectively. Bovine herpes virus-1 (BHV-1) is responsible for causing infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in cattle. The virus maintain a latency in cattle and so, occurrence of re-infection may be possible. To reduce the chances of cattle population getting infection, to maintain the herd health status and to decrease the economic impact caused by this virus, serological assessment of cattle population for BHV-1 antibody on the herd basis is highly warranted Kumar et al. (2007).

A total of 107 coagulated blood samples and 54 milk samples were collected randomly from cattle maintained in organized (n=53) and un-organized farm (n=54) in Chennai, during the year 2011-2012. Samples included, 53 coagulated blood  and 8 milk  from the  organized farm and 54 coagulated blood and 46 milk from the un-organized farm. For calculating the age, cattle were classified as primiparous and pluriparous as based on calving status of the cattle. Breeds of cattle such as,  Tharparkar, Sahiwal, Deoni, Kangayam, Gir, Rathi, and Bargur were maintained  in the organized farm, whereas, in the  un-organized farm, Jersey cross, Holstein Friesian cross, Hallikar and Non-descriptive were maintained. Cattle involved in this study from the organized farm, all were female, and from  the un-organized farm, 46 female and 8 male. Serum was separated  from all blood samples and all milk samples were defated and stored at -20 °C. All samples were collected randomly and subjected to antibody detection by using  IBR-I-ELISA antibody kit, procured from  Svanova Bio-tech, Uppasala, Sweden. One of the important specification of this kit is that it is suitable for the detection of antibody in both serum and milk. The protocols for the usage of the kit was followed as per the manufacturers instructions with little modifications. The result of the test was assessed as based on optical density (OD) read using the microplate photometer at an wavelength 450nm. The percent positive (PP) value was calculated by using both negative and positive control OD values.  

 

The PP value of  >18 for serum samples and  the PP  value of  >8  for milk  samples were considered as positive and remaining samples were considered negative. 

The present study  detected the sero-prevalence of 52.83% (28/53) in cattle tested in the organized farm and 48.14% in (26/54) cattle tested in the un-organized farm. Out of 8 milk samples tested in the organized farm, 37.50% (3/8) was found with antibody prevalence where as 36.95%  (17/46) was found in milk samples in the un-organized farm. Cattle from both the farms (n=107) together showed the overall  antibody prevalence of 50.48% in serum and 37.22% in milk  (n=54). Dhand et al. (2002) reported the sero-prevalence of 51.06% in cattle in the organized farm, contrast to the per cent sero-prevalence of 29.03% recorded in the un- organized farm. Similarly, Trangadia et al. (2012) also reported a higher sero-prevalence of 55.26%  and 70.48%  in the organized farms in Western and  Southern region respectively, in India. In contrast to these reports,  Rajesh et al. (2003) reported a higher sero-prevalence in cattle under  rural farming condition than those cattle raised  under organized farming  conditions. In response to this statement, Khars, (1981) suggested  the higher sero-prevalence in rural farming conditions could be due  to  natural breeding practices that were  followed with  virus contaminated  semen. The rate of sero-prevalence (46.62%) reported by Sharma et al. (2009) was found  lower than the per cent sero- prevalence reported in the present study. Wellenberg et al. (1998) stated that as milk has lower immunoglobulin concentration,  the presence of antibody in milk might also be low compared to antibody present in serum samples. In addition, the lower antibody prevalence in milk in the present study could also be attributed to sample number variations. However, Chandranaik et al. (2010) opined that the presence of antibodies against BHV-1 in cattle itself cannot confirm an active infection in cattle.

Age wise serum and milk antibody prevalence to BHV-1 in cattle in the organized farm was detected as 45.45% (5/11) and zero% (0/1) in Primiparous cattle, while, 62.06% (18/29), 42.85% (3/7) detected in serum and milk respectively in Pluriparous cattle. In the un-organized farm, primiparous cattle showed the antibody status of 57.14% (4/7) and 28.57% (2/7) in serum and milk, whereas, the antibody status assessed in pluriparous cattle was 51.28% (20/39) and 38.46% (15/39) in serum and milk respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (P>0.05) between the two study groups of cattle and antibody prevalence in both the farms. Rajesh et al. (2003) postulated that the  sero-prevalence was higher in adult cattle than the prevalence recorded in the younger ones. In agreement to this statement, Mc Dermott et al. (1997) also opined that  there was a parallel increase of infection occurred with the age advancement. Chinchkar et al. (2002) reported that there was no significant difference found in between the age group of cattle and in the occurrence of the disease. Koppad et al. (2007) reported the sero-prevalence of 39.5 per cent in cattle aged between 3 to 4 years compared to the sero-prevalence (19.50%) that was reported in cattle aged between 5 to 6 years. In contrast, Sharma et al. (2006) identified the disease prevalence invariably in all age group of cattle.

Among the breeds of cattle tested in the organized farm the sero-prevalence of 80.0% (4/5), 52.94% (9/17), 66.66% (4/6), 36.36% (4/11)%, 62.5% (5/8)% and 33.33% (2/6) was detected in Tharparkar, Sahiwal, Gir, Deoni, Kangayam, Rathi and Bargur breeds respectively. Out of 8 milk samples tested from breeds of cattle in the organized farm 100%  (2/2) in Tharparkar and  25%  (1/4) in Sahiwal showed milk antibody prevalence where as the remaining  62.5%  (5/8) milk samples were negative for antibody. Higher sero-prevalence  of  80% in Tharparkar and minimum prevalence of 33.33% recorded in both Rathi and Bargur. In Kangayam, Rathi and Bargur breeds of cattle milk antibody prevalence was not detailed here as there was no milk production in these cattle. Statistical analysis of this study indicated the highly significant role (P<0.01) of the breeds on the prevalence of antibody within the organized farm. According to Mohan et al. (1989) the sero-prevalence was 18.60%, 19.64% and zero percent in Jersey Cross, Holstein Friesian cross and Kangayam bulls respectively, which is, contrast to the sero-prevalence (62.5%) detected in the present study in Kangayam breeds in the organized farm and (45.83%) reported in  Jersey Cross, (70.0%)  in HF Cross in the unorganized farm.  It is likely that the maintenance of close contact between the cattle, various stress related factors which included parturition and milk production in cross breeds could be the reason for the high prevalence of infection in the  organized farm.

The  breeds of cattle in the un-organized farm  showed the sero-prevalence of 45.83% (11/24), 46.66% (7/15), 70% (7/10) and 20% (1/5)  in Jersey Cross, Non-descriptive, Holstein Friesian Cross and Hallikar respectively. Out of 46 milk samples tested,  41.66% (10/ 24)  Jersey Cross, 23.07%  (3/13) Non-descriptive,  44.44%  (4/9)  Holstein Friesian Cross  were found to have   antibody to BHV-1 and the remaining 63.04% (29/39) milk samples were found negative for BHV-1  antibody. The remaining 8 cattle from the un-organized farm were male. Many research workers found higher sero-prevalence in HF cross compared to Jersey cross Koppad et al. (2007); Singh et al. (1985) and Rajesh et al.( 2003), which is in agreement with  the present study report. Statistical analysis proved that breeds of cattle in the un-organized farm had a significant role on  the prevalence of  BHV-1 antibody. Koppad et al. (2007) reported a lower per cent prevalence of 7.4%  in Non-descriptive cattle, conversely, the present study recorded 46.66% prevalence in Non-descriptive breeds could be attributed less extent to mal-nutrition and lower hygiene practices in the farm premises.

The serum and milk antibody prevalence among female cattle tested in the organized farm was 52.83% (28/53) and 37.5%  (3/8) in serum and milk samples respectively, and  there was no male cattle present in this farm, which is higher than the prevalence (45.7%) reported by  Renukaradhya et al. (1996) in cows in the organized farm in Tamil  Nadu. Sharma et al. (2006) recorded 56.92% and 20.00% antibody prevalence in female and male cattle respectively. The serum and milk antibody prevalence in the un-organized farm among the female cattle was 52.17% (24/46) and 36.95% (17/46) respectively. Out of 8 total serum samples tested in male cattle, 25% (2/8) showed antibody prevalence. Koppad et al. (2007) reported   80.0% prevalence  in male and 18.8% in female cattle. In male cattle, in the un-organized farm, only 25% serum samples showed antibody prevalence. Chinchkar et al. (2002) recorded a higher prevalence in male (39.30%) than in female (27.66) which is in contrast  to the results of the present study. 

The overall serum antibody prevalence of BHV-1 by I-ELISA in the organized and in the un-organized farm was 50.48% and the milk antibody  prevalence in both  farms was 37.22% . More or less all the age groups  of cattle were found to have antibody to BHV-1 regardless of farm conditions. I-ELISA detected the highest antibody prevalence (80.0%) in Tharparkar breed in the organized farm and 70% in HF cross in the un-organized farm. Breeds had a significant influence on the prevalence of BHV-1 antibody in both the farms. The serum and milk antibody prevalence among female cattle tested in the organized farm was 52.83%  and 37.5%   in serum and milk samples respectively, whereas, serum and milk antibody prevalence in the un-organized farm among the female cattle was 52.17%  and 36.95% respectively.  Out of   8 total serum samples tested in male cattle, 25% showed antibody prevalence.

Chandranaik, B. M., Chethana, Shivaraj, S. Kumar and C. Renukaprasad, 2010. Isolation of BHV-1 from bovine semen and application of real time PCR for diagniosis of IBR/IPV from clinical samples. Veterinarski. Arhiv., 80 (4): 467-475.

Chinchkar, S. R., V. V. Deshmukh, Abdulaziz and M. B. Gujar, 2002. Seroprevalence of IBR in Maharashtra state. Indian Vet. J.,79: 68-69.

Dhand, N. K., G. Singh, D. R. Sharma and K. S. Sandhu, 2002. Seroprevalence of IBR in Punjab. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 72: 850-852

Kahrs, R. F, 1981.Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, Viral diseases of cattle (First Edition). The Lowa State University Press.Lowa. 135.

Koppad, K. K., S. S. Patil, R. Shome, G. S. Desai, Sanjeevkumar Bhure, M. R. Gajendragad, C. B. Tiwari and K. Prabhudas, 2007. Seroprevalence of Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis in Karnataka. Indian Vet. J.,84(6): 569-572.

Kumar P. Joshi C.G. Pal, S. and Jhala M.K. 2007- Genetic characterization of bovine herpes virus-1 (BHV-1) by polymerase chain reaction, restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)-   Ind.J.Comp.Microbio.Immunol.Infect.Dis. Vol.27, No. 1&2.58-59. 

Malmarugan, S., A. Raja, K. Saravanan and N. Dorairajan, 2004. Seroprevalence of Infectious Bovine Rhinotacheitis in cattle and Buffaloes using Avidin-Biotin Elisa. Cheiron., 33 (5&6):146-149.

Mc Dermott, P. J., M. Kadohira., C. J. O’Callagen and M. M. Shoukri, 1977. Prev. Vet. Med.,32: 219.

Mehrotra, M. L., B. S. Rajya and S. Kumar, 1976. Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) keratoconjunctivities in calves. Indian J. Vet. Path., 1: 70-73.

Mohan, M., B. K. Singh and R. Manickam, 1989. Seroepidemiological studies on infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) in bulls. Indian Vet. J., 66: 914-916.

Rajesh, J. B., P. V. Tresamol and M. R. Saseendranath, 2003. Seroprevalence of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in cattle population of Kerala. Indian Vet. J., 80: 393-396.

Renukaradhya, G. J., M. Rajasekhar and R. Raghavan, 1996. Prevalence of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in Southern India. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 15: 1021-1028.

Sharma, M ., R. C. Katoch, Charanjeet and P. Dhar, 2006. Seroprevalance of IBR among cattle in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Vet. J.,83: 1-3.

Sharma, B.,  R. Singh, Shahnaz and S. K. Yadav,  2009. Seroprevalence of BHV-1 in organized  bovine herd of uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis.,30(2): 122-124.

Singh, B. K., Rama Kant and S. S. Tongaonkar, 1985. Serological survey of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) in dairy cattle. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 55(1): 843-846

Sinha, B. K. , K.K. Mishra, A.P.  Singh and R. Kumar, (2003). Sero-prevalence of IBR in Bihar . Proceedings of the 4^th Asian Buffalo Congress for food security and rural employment 2:17

Trangadia, B. J., S. K. Rana, K. Nagmani and V. A. Srinivasan, 2012. Serological Investigation of Bovine Brucellosis,Johne’s Disease  and infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis in two states of  Indian J. Adv. Vet. Res.,2: 38-41.

Wellenberg, G. J., E. R. A. M. Verstraten, M. H.  Mars and  J. T.Van Oirschot,1998. Detection of Bovine Herpesvirus 1 Glycoprotein E Antibodies in Individual Milk Samples by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays. J. Clin. Microbiol.,  36: 409–413