PRRSV-Vaccinated, Seronegative Sows and Maternally Derived Antibodies (II): Impact on PRRSV-1 Vaccine Effectiveness and Challenge Outcomes in Piglets.

Vaccination against the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSV) is widely practiced in both sows and piglets. However, it has been shown that multivaccinated sows sometimes lack a detectable antibody response, testing seronegative in ELISA (non-responders). Moreover, PRRSV-vaccinated piglets can remain seronegative as well, which is mainly attributed to the interference of maternally derived antibodies (MDAs). The current study investigated the impact of the sow's immune status on the PRRSV vaccine effectiveness in the progeny. The experimental trial included forty-eight piglets ( n = 48) originating from a commercial Belgian breeding herd, with twenty-four piglets born from PRRSV vaccinated responder sows (E+ piglets) and twenty-four piglets born from PRRSV vaccinated non-responder sows (E- piglets). Eight piglets in each group were either non-vaccinated (NoVac piglets; n = 8), intramuscularly vaccinated (IM piglets; n = 8), or intradermally vaccinated (ID piglets; n = 8), with the same PRRSV-1 vaccine as used in the sow population. Vaccination was performed at weaning at three weeks of age, and all study piglets were challenged with a high dose of the PRRSV-1 07V063 strain at 6 weeks of age. A clear interference of MDAs was observed in the E+ piglets: 66.7% of the vaccinated E+ piglets lacked an antibody response at 3 weeks post-vaccination (non-responders). Consequently, post-challenge, only the responding E+ piglets had a significantly reduced serum viremia compared to the E+ NoVac piglets. The observed viremia in the non-responding E+ piglets was similar to the viremia of the E+ NoVac piglets. In the vaccinated E- piglets, a lack of antibody response at 3 weeks post-vaccination was observed in 18.8% of the piglets. Interestingly, despite the lack of a vaccine antibody response, the non-responding E- piglets had a significantly reduced serum viremia compared to the NoVac E- piglets. In contrast, the viremia of the responding E- piglets was only numerically reduced compared to the NoVac E- piglets. Finally, some clear differences were observed in both the kinetics of infection and the immune responses post-challenge between the E+ and E- piglets. The results of this study confirm the consequences of the MDA interference on the induced partial protection of PRRSV vaccination in experimentally challenged piglets. More research is warranted to understand the immunological mechanisms behind MDA interference in PRRSV vaccination and to explain the observed differences between E+ and E- piglets.