Search

Tick fever is an important disease of cattle where Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus acts as a vector for the three causal organisms Babesia bovis, Babesia bigemina and Anaplasma marginale. Bos indicus cattle and their crosses are more resistant to the clinical effects of infection with B. bovis and B. bigemina than are Bos taurus cattle. Resistance is not complete, however, and herds of B. indicus-cross cattle are still at risk of babesiosis in environments where exposure to B. bovis is light in most years but occasionally high. The susceptibility of B. indicus cattle and their crosses to infection with A. marginale is similar to that of B. taurus cattle. In herds of B. indicus cattle and their crosses the infection rate of Babesia spp. and A. marginale is lowered because fewer ticks are likely to attach per day due to reduced numbers of ticks in the field (long-term effect on population, arising from high host resistance) and because a smaller proportion of ticks that do develop to feed on infected cattle will in turn be infected (due to lower parasitaemia). As a consequence, herds of B. indicus cattle are less likely than herds of B. taurus cattle to have high levels of population immunity to babesiosis or anaplasmosis. The effects of acaricide application on the probability of clinical disease due to anaplasmosis and babesiosis are unpredictable and dependent on the prevalence of infection in ticks and in cattle at the time of application. Attempting to manipulate population immunity through the toleration of specific threshold numbers of ticks with the aim of controlling tick fever is not reliable and the justification for acaricide application should be for the control of ticks rather than for tick fever. Vaccination of B. indicus cattle and their crosses is advisable in all areas where ticks exist, although vaccination against B. bigemina is probably not essential in pure B. indicus animals.

Objective: To review the evidence available on the degree and duration of immunity provided by Australian tick fever vaccines against Babesia bovis, B. bigemina and Anaplasma marginale infections in Australia and overseas., Background: Vaccines containing attenuated strains of B bovis and B bigemina as well as A. centrale grown in splenectomised calves have been used in Australia since 1964 to immunise cattle against tick fever. About 800,000 doses of vaccine are supplied annually and much of the evidence for protection is field evidence rather than conventional immunological measures or pen trials., Conclusions: Immunity to Babesia bovis and B. bigemina--A single inoculation generally provides sound, long-lasting protection both in Australia and overseas. No evidence was found of a loss of immunity with time. Vaccine failures to B. bovis do occur, but are uncommon and evidently caused by a number of factors, including immune responsiveness of the vaccinated animals, and immunogenicity of the vaccine strain. Immunity to Anaplasma marginale--The vaccine containing A. centrale provides partial, variable protection against A. marginale. Protection against challenge in Australia is adequate in most cases to prevent disease and use of the vaccine in this country appears to be justified. Protection against antigenically diverse, highly virulent stocks of A. marginale in other countries is, at times, clearly inadequate and better vaccines are required in situations where the challenge is severe.

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for antibodies to Babesia bovis was evaluated in comparison with the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) in Australia and Zimbabwe. Positive and negative threshold values for the ELISA were set using sera from cattle of known infection status. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the ELISA based on 158 positive sera from cattle experimentally infected with Australian isolates of B. bovis and 318 negative sera collected from B. bovis-free herds in Australia were 100% and 99.4%, respectively. The specificity of the assay in Africa, based on 328 sera from B. bovis-free herds in Kenya and South Africa, was 99.7%. The ELISA was compared with the IFAT using sequential sera from 16 calves experiencing primary B. bovis infections, and a total of 777 field sera collected from B. bovis-endemic herds in Australia and Zimbabwe. In primary infections, the ELISA and IFAT detected antibodies at or about the same time. With sera from endemic herds, the performance of the ELISA was at least comparable with that of the IFAT. Two hundred and fourteen of 221 sera that were negative by IFAT, were negative by ELISA, and 428 of 439 sera that were clearly positive by IFAT were positive by ELISA. Of 117 sera that gave equivocal (suspect or weak positive) results in the IFAT, 20 were positive by ELISA, 7 were suspect and 90 were negative. We conclude that the ELISA will be useful for epidemiological studies on B. bovis in Australia and Zimbabwe, and probably elsewhere.