Research Results - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID
Research Results - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID
Research Results - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The second approach was to continue<br />
screening kids raised in confinement by challenge<br />
with 10,000 H.contortus larvae. Two<br />
groups (42 and 27 kids) have been screened.<br />
Two bucks and three does have been identified<br />
that had fewer than 500 EPG in challenge infections.<br />
These results are interesting because<br />
other kids had greater than 10,000 EPG. We<br />
plan to screen two additional groups of kids<br />
before January 1991 using the same design. In<br />
addition, we will expose kids with less than 500<br />
EPG (in primary infections) to a secondary<br />
challenge for confirmation. Kids experiencing<br />
low EPG identified in these two approaches will<br />
be included in breeding challenge experiments<br />
planned for 1991.<br />
Project Achievements<br />
Goats have been identified that resist H.<br />
contortus larval challenge.<br />
Changes in Workplan<br />
We initially planned to compare two<br />
groups of at least 10 goats each-one group with<br />
low egg counts averaging less than 300 eggs per<br />
gram of feces (EPG), and the other group averaging<br />
more than 1000 EPG. Because of irsufficient<br />
kids available for the low EPG group, we<br />
have focused our efforts on obtaining additional<br />
kids that resist H. contortusinfections. We have<br />
used two approaches to identify these kids. In<br />
the first, four does from a low EPG group were<br />
bred to one buck from the same group. This<br />
produced five kids that were raised in confinement<br />
and challenged with 10,000 H. contortus.<br />
One doe had undetectable EPG on both the<br />
primary and secondary challenge infections.<br />
Additional kids will be available from this<br />
breeding stock for testing in the coming year.<br />
Activity No. 2. Identification of Antigens<br />
for the Diagnosis and Prevention of<br />
Heartwater in Goats.<br />
Objective<br />
Identify and evaluate Cowdria<br />
ruminantiumsurface proteins.<br />
Problem Statement and Approach<br />
Heartwater is caused by the rickettsia C.<br />
ruminantiumand infects goats, sheep, and cattle.<br />
In goats, the disease causes a very high mortality<br />
and can be devastating in susceptible populations.<br />
Ti;.nsmission is by ticks, primarily<br />
A<strong>mb</strong>lyomma variegatum,which is widely distributed<br />
in Kenya. The approach is to identify C.<br />
ruminantiumsurface proteins in expression<br />
libraries made from genomic DNA.<br />
Justification<br />
The identification of reco<strong>mb</strong>inant surface<br />
proteins of the organism is the first step toward<br />
development of a subunit vaccine for the disease.<br />
Such a vaccine could be used to prevent<br />
the disease and eventually become part of a<br />
multivalent reco<strong>mb</strong>inant vaccine that would<br />
induce protection against the major goat diseases.<br />
Project Progress<br />
During the evaluation of the genomic<br />
DNA library for expression of surface proteins it<br />
became obvious that one or more of the cloned<br />
genes could be used to develop a diagnostic<br />
DNA probe. The DNA probe could be used to<br />
identify infected goats and ticks. This identification<br />
could be very important foy epidemiology<br />
studies to define areas where the disease occurs<br />
and to define conditions where goats are at risk<br />
of infection.<br />
Two DNA clones were identified: pCR9,<br />
which is derived from the Kiswani, Kenya,<br />
isolate of C. ruminantiumand pCS20, which is<br />
derived from the Crystal Springs, Zi<strong>mb</strong>abwe,<br />
isolate. Initial specificity was determined by<br />
hybridization with labeled DNA from infected<br />
culture cells, but not to DNA from uninfected<br />
cells. Infurther studies, it was found that the<br />
labeled DNA insert from pCR9 bound to large<br />
amounts of some bacterial DNAs causing<br />
specificity problems. In contrast, the insert from<br />
pCS20 was more specific and did not bind to .<br />
ng of DNA isolated from several different<br />
rickettsia, bacteria and protozoa. Neither probe<br />
bound to DNA extracted from A.variegatum<br />
89