| Literature DB >> 35255906 |
Yu Zhang1, Xiao-Yan Li1, Bing-Sha Zhang1, Li-Na Ren1, Yan-Peng Lu1, Jin-Wen Tang1, Di Lv1, Lu Yong1, Li-Ting Lin1, Zi-Xue Lin1, Qin Mo2, Mei-Lan Mo3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) leads to huge economic losses in the poultry industry worldwide. The high levels of mutations of IBV render vaccines partially protective. Therefore, it is urgent to explore an effective antiviral drug or agent. The present study aimed to investigate the in vivo anti-IBV activity of a mixture of plant essential oils (PEO) of cinnamaldehyde (CA) and glycerol monolaurate (GML), designated as Jin-Jing-Zi.Entities:
Keywords: Cytokine; Immune response; Infectious bronchitis virus; Inhibition; Plant essential oils
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35255906 PMCID: PMC8899001 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03183-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1The clinical signs score of IBV-infected chicks treated with PEO in different periods. Note: Significant values were not marked in the figure
Clinical prevention and treatment effects of PEO on IB
| Groups | Number of animals | 5 dpc | The 7 th day after administration | Number of cures | Cure rate | Protection rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence number | Incidence rate | Incidence number | Incidence rate | |||||
| Blank control | 20 | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— |
| Challenge control | 20 | 15 | 75.00 | 14 | 70.00 | —— | —— | —— |
| Prevention | 20 | 8 | 40.00 | 2 | 10.00 | 6 | 75.00 | 60.00 |
| Positive drug | 20 | 12 | 60.00 | 2 | 10.00 | 10 | 83.33 | —— |
| PEO-L | 20 | 14 | 70.00 | 3 | 15.00 | 11 | 78.57 | —— |
| PEO-M | 20 | 13 | 65.00 | 1 | 5.00 | 12 | 92.31 | —— |
| PEO-H | 20 | 12 | 60.00 | 1 | 5.00 | 11 | 91.67 | —— |
Fig. 2Viral loads in tracheas and kidneys. IBV RNA levels in tracheas and kidneys were evaluated on days 2 and 5 of drug withdrawal. A Viral loads in tracheas. B Viral loads in kidneys. Sample quantity n = 5; compared with the blank control group, the challenge control group showed # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01; compared with the challenge control group, the prevention and drug groups (positive drug and different doses of PEO) showed *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Different superscript letters indicated significant differences (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Effects of PEO on organ indices in chicks on days 2 and 5 drug withdrawal. A Spleen index. B Thymus index. C Bursa of Fabricius index. Sample quantity n = 5; compared with the blank control group, the challenge control group showed # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01; compared with the challenge control group, the prevention and drug groups (positive drug and different doses of PEO) showed *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Different superscript letters indicated significant differences (p < 0.05)
Fig. 4IBV-specific antibody titers in sera detected by indirect ELISA. Sample quantity n = 5; compared with the blank control group, the challenge control group showed ## p < 0.01; compared with the challenge control group, the prevention and drug groups (positive drug and different doses of PEO) showed ** p < 0.01. Different superscript letters indicated significant differences (p < 0.05)
Fig. 5IL-4, IFN-γ, and IL-6 concentrations in the sera. A IL-4 concentrations. B IFN-γ concentrations. C IL-6 concentrations. Sample quantity n = 5; compared with the blank control group, the challenge control group showed ## p < 0.01; compared with the challenge control group, the prevention and drug groups (positive drug and different doses of PEO) showed *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Different superscript letters indicated significant differences (p < 0.05)
Animals grouping and treatment
| Groups | Treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| D3-D7 | D8 | D13-D17 | |
| Blank control | - | - | - |
| Challenge control | - | IBV challenge | - |
| Prevention | PEO (1.5 mL/L) | IBV challenge | - |
| Positive drug | - | IBV challenge | positive drug (0.7 mL/L) |
| PEO-L | - | IBV challenge | PEO (0.5 mL/L) |
| PEO-M | - | IBV challenge | PEO (1.0 mL/L) |
| PEO-H | - | IBV challenge | PEO (2.0 mL/L) |
The score criteria for clinical evaluation
| Inspection item | Clinical symptom | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Mental state | Lively and active, with bright eyes | 0 |
| Listlessness and eyes are sightless | 2 | |
| Depression, fear of cold and cluster together | 4 | |
| Feeding condition | Appetite is exuberant and food is snatched | 0 |
| Loss of appetite, leftovers | 2 | |
| Lost appetite, hardly ate | 4 | |
| Status of drinking water | Act leisurely and drink easily | 0 |
| Hardly drinking water | 4 | |
| Head-shaking phenomenon or not | No head shaking | 0 |
| Mild head shaking | 2 | |
| Frequent head shaking | 4 | |
| Cough condition | No cough symptoms | 0 |
| Slight coughing | 2 | |
| Frequent coughing | 4 | |
| Rale in trachea or not | No tracheal rale | 0 |
| A slight rale in the trachea | 2 | |
| Tracheal heavy-tone | 4 | |
| Breath state | Normal breathing | 0 |
| Shortness of breath | 2 | |
| Dyspnea, mouth breathing | 4 |
The criteria for judging curative effect
| Results | Disappearance of symptoms | Reduction of symptom score |
|---|---|---|
| Recure | Symptoms disappear or basically disappear | Symptom score reduction ≥ 95% |
| Significant effect | The symptoms improved significantly | Symptom score reduction ≥ 70%, < 95% |
| Turn for the better | The symptoms have improved | Symptom score reduction ≥ 35%, < 70% |
| Invalid | No significant improvement in symptoms, or even aggravation | Symptom score reduction ≤ 35% |