{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02343211578221916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004824259131633356, 'mean_word_length': 5.075313807531381, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Antigenic sites of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV): an analysis of the specificities of anti-FMDV antibodies after vaccination of naturally susceptible host species.

Of the known neutralizing antigenic sites of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), site 1 or A, formed in part by the G-H loop of VP1, has historically been considered immunodominant because of evidence implicating its importance in the induction of a protective immune response. However, no systematic study has been done to determine the relative importance of the various specificities of antibodies against the known neutralizing antigenic sites of FMDV in the polyclonal immune response of a natural host after vaccination. In this report, we have adopted a monoclonal antibody-based competition ELISA and used antibodies specific to sites 1, 2 and 3 to provide some insight into this issue. Following vaccination of the three main target species, cattle, pigs and sheep, with an O1 serotype strain, results indicate that none of these three antigenic sites can be considered immunodominant in a polyclonal serum. Interestingly, pigs did not respond to epitopes on the carboxy terminus end of VP1 as efficiently as the ruminant species. In addition to the known sites, other as yet undefined sites might also be important in the induction of a protective immune response. Possible implications for the design of new vaccine strategies for foot-and-mouth disease are discussed.