medigraphic.com

2020, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2020; 7 (4)

Attenuation of a Turkeypoxvirus field strain as an alternative to heterologous vaccination in turkeys

Nolasco E, Quintana JA, Valdés LM, Rangel L, Cobos-Marín L

Language: English/Spanish
References: 22
Page: 1-12
PDF size: 363.21 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Avian pox can severely impact turkey production systems. Vaccination programs in Mexico use commercially available Fowlpoxvirus vaccines, that are used across different bird species. Nonetheless, there are reports of sporadic disease outbreaks among vaccinated turkeys, which suggest that heterologous vaccines may provide limited immunity, presenting the need to develop homologous vaccines that can better protect turkeys.
This study compared the protection granted to turkey chicks by a commercial Fowlpoxvirus vaccine and by a live attenuated Turkeypoxvirus vaccine after a challenge with a field isolated Turkeypoxvirus virus.
Histopathology, polymerase chain reaction, and sequencing of DNA were used for viral identification. A Turkeypoxvirus strain was first isolated in chicken embryo lesions, and subsequently adapted through serial passes in chorioallantoic membrane to produce the homologous vaccine. The attenuated virus was used as a vaccine when a 104.4 embryo ID50/mL titre was reached.
Three groups of three-week-old turkey chicks were used for challenge experiments. Subjects in Group 1 were immunized with the attenuated Turkeypoxvirus vaccine (homologous vaccine). Chicks in Group 2 were vaccinated with the commercially available heterologous vaccine (Fowlpoxvirus). Subjects in Group 3 were not vaccinated and received only saline solution (control group). Two weeks after vaccination, animals from Group 1 reached a 97.7 ND50 seroneutralization titre, while levels reached in Group 2 birds and in control chicks were 11.7 ND50 (Group 2) and zero, respectively. At this time, all groups were challenged with a suspension of a field-isolated Turkeypox virus. The homologous vaccine afforded 100% protection in Group 1 (10/10 individuals), while only 10% (1/10) of individuals in Group 2 were protected by the commercial heterologous Fowlpoxvirus vaccine. None of the non-immunized birds in Group 3 were protected (0/10).


REFERENCES

  1. Quintana JA. Avitecnia: Manejo de las aves domésticas más comunes. 4th ed. México: Trillas; 2011. 406 p.

  2. Unión Nacional de Avicultores. Compendio de indicadores económicos del sector avícola 2020. una.org.mx. México; cited 2020 dec 10. Avialable from: https://una.org.mx/indicadores-economicos/

  3. Swayne D, editor. Diseases of poultry. 13th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. 1341 p.

  4. SADER. Yucatán, principal productor de pavo en México. México: SADER; 2018.

  5. MacLachlan NJ, Dubovi EJ. Fenner S. Veterinary viroligy. 5th ed. Cambridge, MS: Academic Press; 2016. 602 p.

  6. Lüschow D, Hoffmann T, Hafez HM. Differentiation of avian poxvirus strains on the basis of nucleotide sequences of 4b gene fragment. Avian Dis. 2004;48(3):453–62.

  7. Gyuranecz M, Foster JT, Dan A, Ip HS, Egstad KF, Parker PG, et al. Worldwide phylogenetic relationship of avian poxviruses. J Virol. 2013;87(9):4938–51.

  8. Tadese T, Reed WM. Use of restriction fragment length polymorphism, immunoblotting, and polymerase chain reaction in the differentiation of avian poxviruses. J Vet Diagnostic Investig. 2003;15(2):141–50.

  9. Afonso CL, Tulman ER, Lu Z, Zsak L, Kutish GF, Rock DL. The genome of fowlpox virus. J Virol. 2000;74(8):3815–31.

  10. Tulman ER, Afonso CL, Lu Z, Zsak L, Kutish GF, Rock DL. The genome of canarypox virus. J Virol. 2004;78(1):353–66.

  11. Winterfield RW, Reed W. Avian pox: infection and immunity with quail, psittacine, fowl, and pigeon pox viruses. Poult Sci. 1985;64(1):65–70.

  12. Sánchez A, Valdés LM, Rangel LE, Cobos L. Evaluación del efecto protector de una autovacuna elaborada a partir de poxvirus de palomas. Arch Med Vet. 2012;86:81–6.

  13. Gelenczei EF, Lasher HN. Comparative studies of cell-culture-propagated avian pox viruses in chickens and turkeys. Avian Dis. 1968;12(1):142–50.

  14. Purchase HG. A laboratory manual for the isolation and identification of avian pathogens. 5th ed. Madison, WI: OmniPress Inc; 1990. 331 p.

  15. Lee LH, Lee KH. Application of the polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of fowl poxvirus infection. J Virol Methods. 1997;63(1–2):113–9.

  16. Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson A. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1977;74(12):5463–7.

  17. Reed LJ, Muench H. A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Am J Epidemiol. 1938;27(3):493–7.

  18. Murphy FA, J Gibb, C Horzinek JS. Laboratory diagnosis of viral diseases. 3a ed. Murphy FA, editor. Veterinary virology. California: Academic Press California; 1999. p. 216–8.

  19. Winterfield RW, Reed WM, Thacker HL. Infection and immunity with a virus isolate from turkeys. Poult Sci. 1984;64:2076–80.

  20. Sarma G, Kersting BA, Spina G. Vaccination of 1-day-old turkey poults with fowlpox vaccine by subcutaneous route. Avian Dis. 2015;59(3):419–21.

  21. Hess C, Maegdefrau-Pollan B, Bilic I, Liebhart D, Richter S, Mitsch P, et al. Outbreak of cutaneous form of poxvirus on a commercial turkey farm caused by the species fowlpox. Avian Dis Dig. 2011;6(4):714–8.

  22. Zinkernagel RM, LaMarre A, Ciurea A, Hunziker L, Ochsenbein AF, McCoy KD. Neutralizing antiviral antibody responses. Adv Immunol. 2001;79:1–53.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com