Literature DB >> 20392431

Vaccination of commercial broiler chicks against avian metapneumovirus infection: a comparison of drinking-water, spray and oculo-oral delivery methods.

Kannan Ganapathy1, Andrew Bufton, Andrew Pearson, Stephane Lemiere, Richard C Jones.   

Abstract

Avian metapneumovirus (aMPV) has become an important cause of viral respiratory infections in turkey and chickens. Live and inactivated vaccinations are available worldwide for prevention of disease and economic losses caused by this pathogen. The efficacy of these vaccines is vigorously tested under laboratory conditions prior to use in the field. In this study, a live subtype B aMPV vaccine was administered by spray, drinking water or oculo-oral methods to separate groups of broiler chicks under field conditions. Following this, the chicks were immediately transferred to separate rooms in an experimental isolation house, monitored and challenged with virulent subtype B aMPV. No clinical signs were recorded following the vaccination methods. In the oculo-oral vaccinated chicks, 40-60% of the birds were vaccine virus positive by RT-PCR. In addition, in comparison to other groups, statistically higher levels of aMPV ELISA antibodies were detected. After spray vaccination, the number of chicks positive for the vaccine virus increased gradually from 10% at one week to 30% by 3 weeks post vaccination. Following drinking water vaccination, 30% of chicks were aMPV positive at 1 week but negative by 3 weeks post vaccination. In both, spray and drinking water vaccinated groups, no ELISA antibodies were detected, but when challenged all chicks were protected against disease. At 5 days post challenge, 100% of chicks in the unvaccinated and those vaccinated by spray or drinking water routes but only 20% of the oculo-oral-vaccinated chicks were aMPV positive by RT-PCR. At 10 days post challenge, 10% of chicks in each group were aMPV RT-PCR positive. On challenge, all vaccinated chicks were protected against disease. It appears that when aMPV vaccine is accurately applied to chicks by spray or drinking water routes, both are capable of giving protection against clinical disease equal to that induced in those chicks vaccinated individually by the oculo-oral route. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20392431     DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.03.065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  4 in total

1.  Comparative protective immunity provided by live vaccines of Newcastle disease virus or avian metapneumovirus when co-administered alongside classical and variant strains of infectious bronchitis virus in day-old broiler chicks.

Authors:  Christopher Ball; Anne Forrester; Andreas Herrmann; Stephane Lemiere; Kannan Ganapathy
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.641

2.  Efficacy of a novel avian metapneumovirus live vaccine candidate based on vaccination route and age.

Authors:  Ha-Na Youn; Jin-Yong Noh; Myeong-Seob Kim; Hyo-Sun Ju; Dam-Hee Park; Da-Ye Lee; Kyu-Jik Kim; Seong-Hye Go; Chang-Seon Song
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Immunoprophylactic effects of administering honeybee (Apis melifera) venom spray against Salmonella gallinarum in broiler chicks.

Authors:  Bock-Gie Jung; Jin-A Lee; Seong-Beom Park; Pung-Mi Hyun; Jin-Kyu Park; Guk-Hyun Suh; Bong-Joo Lee
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 1.267

4.  Effect of a Synbiotic Mix on Intestinal Structural Changes, and Salmonella Typhimurium and Clostridium Perfringens Colonization in Broiler Chickens.

Authors:  Zuamí Villagrán-de la Mora; Karla Nuño; Olga Vázquez-Paulino; Hugo Avalos; Javier Castro-Rosas; Carlos Gómez-Aldapa; Carlos Angulo; Felipe Ascencio; Angélica Villarruel-López
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 2.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.