During days 43–85, vaccination conferred a statistically significant protection against tick infestation, ranging from 56.3 to 61.6%. However, the protection decreased to 35.3% two months after the last booster, along a decrease in antibody levels to rBYC and rVTDCE, suggesting the importance of these antibodies in protection rates obtained in previous

counts. The reduction in tick infestation following immunization with the three proteins is directly correlated with cattle body weight gain. Actually, body weight signals cattle fitness, a major productive parameter that is used as an indicator of vaccine effectiveness in field trials [1], [41] and [42]. Under experimental conditions, body weight gain was significantly Cyclopamine higher in vaccinated animals than in the control group. This effect seems to be a result of reduction in cattle damage by parasitism due to blood loss caused by the attaching ticks, and consequently, an improving in the overall health of the cattle. In sum, the immune response generated by simultaneous vaccination with rGST-Hl, rBYC, and VTDCE affects tick physiology, decreasing the

number of females feeding in the host, resulting in an improved body weight gain of cattle. When compared to rGST-Hl, rBYC, or VTDCE single-antigenic vaccination in confined cattle, PFI-2 clinical trial the multi-antigenic vaccine produced higher protection against R. microplus infestation. In spite of the differences between the vaccination much protocols, these results demonstrate the possibility of developing a cattle multi-antigenic vaccine against R. microplus that seems to be more

effective than a single antigenic vaccine against tick infestation under natural field conditions. More work is necessary to evaluate the economic benefits of a multi-antigen or a single-antigen vaccine to control ticks. However, the use of such vaccine, associated with existent and/or available control methods could result in a more efficient control of R. microplus. The authors thank Omar Santana for animal handling, Rovaina Laureano Doyle and all staff of FEPAGRO São Gabriel for valuable technical support, Aoi Masuda for valuable comments, Naftaly W. Githaka for his valuable English review of this article. This work was supported by grants from Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Entomologia Molecular, CNPq, FEPAGRO, HHMI, FINEP, CAPES, FAPERJ and FAPERGS. “
“The authors wish to submit a correction to the above article: A calculation error has been discovered. The EID50 dose values for SeVRSV and in vivo TCID50/ml values for SeV and SeVRSV should have been reported as 10-fold higher. The overall conclusion of the manuscript remains unchanged. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused. “
“Infectious diseases continue to pose a tremendous burden of disease worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1].