ISCAID

Abstract submission for the Virtual ISCAID Symposium 2020

Presented By

 

Click here to download these instructions

Submission

The Virtual ISCAID Symposium 2020 is open for the submission of abstracts. Abstracts must be submitted via Oxford Abstracts here (https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/1654/submitter). 

The deadline for receipt of the abstracts is 23.59 GMT Monday 10th August 2020. Corrections (e.g. to text or co-authors) cannot be received after the deadline. You will be informed about the decision around 24th August.

Presentation will be pre-recorded then streamed on either September 10th or 11th. Authors must be available at the time of airing to field questions from attendees.

Acknowledging successful submission

When your abstract is successfully submitted, you will receive an acknowledgement by email containing a reference number for your submission.  If you have any queries please email: iscaid@outlook.com or Emi Barker (emi.barker@bristol.ac.uk)

Submitter Requirements

Anyone can submit an abstract(s). There is no honorarium for presentation, but abstract presenters will be able to register for the Symposium for free.

There will be two IDEXX/ISCAID awards for the best student research abstract on infectious diseases of companion animals (for eligible submitters). Requirements for award consideration:

  • Active resident in an approved ECVIM / ACVIM junior or senior clinical training program, intern, PhD student or veterinary/science undergraduate student (including those having completed such a programme within 6-months of submission) may be eligible for an abstract award.
  • Abstracts will be judged on the quality of both the research and presentation
  • Eligibility for an award must be made apparent at time of submission

Only one type of research abstract communications will be available: oral presentation

Oral abstracts will be assigned to a 15min slot in the programme (this will be followed by five minutes for questions and changeover).

Decision is final and not subject to discussion.

Notification of the day and time will be made when the final programme timetable is made.

Submissions will be reviewed according to their scientific content, their structure and clarity, and their relevance to companion animal infectious disease advancements:

  • A preference to those with a focus on zoonosis or SARS-CoV-2 in companion animals will be given.
  • Abstracts should describe research in the field of companion animal infectious disease
  • Single case reports will only be considered if they are of exceptional nature
  • Reviews will not be accepted
  • Abstracts which describe data as pending will not be accepted
  • Abstracts describing studies deemed to include unethical treatment of animals will not be accepted
  • Abstracts that have been previously published/presented in current or substantially similar form at an international meeting will not be accepted

Disclosures Statement

All abstracts must include a statement at the bottom of their abstract, headed Disclosures, on behalf of all co-authors, regarding any disclosures for their work. This enables congress attendees to determine whether or not there may have been bias or the perception of bias. This can occur when any of the authors (or someone related to the authors e.g. family member, spouse, friend) has a relationship with any entity that has an interest (direct or indirect) related to the submission. Examples include:

  • Any form of support (financial or otherwise) for the study described in the abstract.
  • Any form of support for other work that that the authors are involved in.
  • Financial relationships (which may be unrelated to the subject matter of the abstract) whereby the individual or relative benefits by receiving a salary, royalties, consulting fees, speaker honoraria, ownership interests (e.g. stock or stock options), or other benefits.
  • Indirect benefits i.e. where the author, or author’s institution, benefits from the results of the study. An example would be where the author (or their institution) runs a laboratory service, which performs an assay that is discussed in the abstract.

Please note that it is best to practise ‘full disclosure’ and err on the side of caution; if in doubt, please include the item. If accepted for oral presentation the speaker must display their disclosures on the second slide of their presentation (i.e. immediately following the title slide), and similarly, disclosures should be listed on posters.

Abstract Guidelines

  • Abstracts that do not fit within the following guidelines will be rejected based on formatting. Please see below for an example of a correctly formatted abstract.
  • All abstracts must be submitted by email.
  • The title must be 15 words maximum and clearly indicate the nature of the investigation. Abbreviations should be avoided in the title. CAPITALIZE THE ENTIRE TITLE.
  • Abstracts MUST be between 200 and 250 words in length (excluding title, author details/addresses, disclosures statement, word count, presentation preference and abstract award eligibility). The abstract should contain information on the following, using these as subheadings in bold: Background, Aims, Methods, Results and Discussion/Conclusions. A statement that “the results will be discussed” is not acceptable.
  • Please include a Disclosure statement in the text box on the submission form in the ‘Disclosures’ section.
  • Proof-read your submission carefully as the abstract will appear EXACTLY as submitted; excessively poor grammar or clarity of writing will not be accepted.

Oral presentations

Electronic slides should be organised in a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation (ideally 16:9 format). Please ensure you adhere to the time you are allotted for your oral presentation. Further details regarding the online platform will follow.

Questions?

Contact Emi Barker (emi.barker@bristol.ac.uk)

 

Correctly formatted abstract example:

IMMUNOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF PROTECTIVE IMMUNITY AGAINST INFECTION WITH A PATHOGENIC HEMOTROPHIC MYCOPLASMA

Chelsea A. E. Hicksa; Barbara Willibc; Barbara Riondb; Marilisa Novaccob; Marina L. Melibd; Christopher R. Stokesa; Christopher R. Helpsa; Regina Hofmann-Lehmannbd; Séverine Taskera

aBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; bClinical Laboratory, cClinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine and dCenter for Clinical Studies, Vetsuisse Facility, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Background: Haemoplasmas are emerging and potentially zoonotic mycoplasmal pathogens, which are not consistently cleared by antibiotic therapy. Mycoplasma haemofelis is the most pathogenic feline haemoplasma species.

Aims: To characterize the immune response following de novo M. haemofelis infection and to determine how previously infected M. haemofelis cats, that had recovered, reacted when re-challenged with M. haemofelis.

Methods: Five SPF-derived naïve (Group A) and five M. haemofelis recovered cats (Group B) were inoculated subcutaneously with M. haemofelis. Blood M. haemofelis loads were measured by quantitative PCR (qPCR), antibody response to heat shock protein 70 (DnaK) by ELISA, blood lymphocyte cell subtypes by flow cytometry and cytokine mRNA levels by reverse-transcriptase qPCR.

Results: Group A all became infected with high bacterial loads and sero-converted, whilst Group B were protected from re-challenge; thus providing the unique opportunity to study the immunological parameters associated with a protective immune response against M. haemofelis. Firstly, a strong humoral response to DnaK was only observed in Group A, demonstrating that an antibody response to DnaK is not important for protective immunity. Secondly, pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 mRNA levels appeared to increase rapidly post inoculation in Group B, indicating a possible role in protective immunity. Thirdly, an increase in IL-12p35 and p40 mRNA, and decrease in Th2/Th1 ratio, observed in Group A suggest that a Th1 type response is important in primary infection.

Discussion/Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate protective immunity against M. haemofelis infection and provides important information for potential future haemoplasma vaccine design.

Disclosures: C.A.E.H. holds a PhD studentship funded by BBSRC and Zoetis Animal Health.

Word count: 248

Abstract award: Eligible (PhD student)