Footpad dermatitis (FPD) is a condition that causes necrotic lesions on the plantar surface of the footpads in growing broilers and turkeys. This condition not only causes downgrades and condemnations of saleable chicken paws, the portion of the leg below the spur, but is also an animal welfare concern in both the United States and in Europe.. Revenue from chicken paws in 2008 alone was worth $280 million. Harvesting large, unblemished paws has become a priority to poultry companies all over the world. Research on this subject has been ongoing since the 1940s and has looked into many different areas including nutrition, environment, and genetics. Early research looked at nutritional deficiencies such as riboflavin and biotin mainly in turkey poults. This early research was most likely looking at a separate form of dermatitis than what is being investigated now. Recent findings have suggested that there is a myriad of interacting factors that lead to FPD. Litter moisture appears to be the most likely culprit in the onset of this condition. Research has also shown a possible genetic link in the susceptibility to development of FPD lesions. Current chicken paw prices have skyrocketed due to a large export market in Asia. To produce unblemished paws for both increased profit and comply with current animal welfare recommendations, further research is needed to understand how the condition develops and what strategies can be used to prevent it.

Low pathogenicity avian influenza virus (LPAIV) and lentogenic Newcastle disease virus (lNDV) are commonly reported causes of respiratory disease in poultry worldwide with similar clinical and pathobiological presentation. Co-infections do occur but are not easily detected, and the impact of co-infections on pathobiology is unknown. In this study chickens and turkeys were infected with a lNDV vaccine strain (LaSota) and a H7N2 LPAIV (A/turkey/VA/SEP-67/2002) simultaneously or sequentially three days apart. No clinical signs were observed in chickens co-infected with the lNDV and LPAIV or in chickens infected with the viruses individually. However, the pattern of virus shed was different with co-infected chickens, which excreted lower titers of lNDV and LPAIV at 2 and 3 days post inoculation (dpi) and higher titers at subsequent time points. All turkeys inoculated with the LPAIV, whether or not they were exposed to lNDV, presented mild clinical signs. Co-infection effects were more pronounced in turkeys than in chickens with reduction in the number of birds shedding virus and in virus titers, especially when LPAIV was followed by lNDV. In conclusion, co-infection of chickens or turkeys with lNDV and LPAIV affected the replication dynamics of these viruses but did not affect clinical signs. The effect on virus replication was different depending on the species and on the time of infection. These results suggest that infection with a heterologous virus may result in temporary competition for cell receptors or competent cells for replication, most likely interferon-mediated, which decreases with time.

IMPORTANCEThe spread of H5 subtype highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses of the Gs/GD lineage by migratory waterfowl is a serious concern for animal and public health. H5 and H7 HPAI viruses are considered to be adapted to gallinaceous species (chickens, turkeys, quail, etc.) and less likely to infect and transmit in wild ducks. In order to understand why this is different with certain Gs/GD lineage H5 HPAI viruses, we compared the pathogenicity and transmission of several H5 and H7 HPAI viruses from previous poultry outbreaks to Gs/GD lineage H5 viruses, including H5N1 (clade 2.2), H5N8 and H5N2 (clade 2.3.4.4) viruses, in mallards as a representative wild duck species. Surprisingly, most HPAI viruses examined in this study replicated well and transmitted among mallards; however, the three Gs/GD lineage H5 HPAI viruses replicated to higher titers, which could explain the transmission of these viruses in susceptible wild duck populations.

H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses continue to be a threat to poultry in many regions of the world. Domestic ducks have been recognized as one of the primary factors in the spread of H5N1 HPAI. In this study we examined the pathogenicity of H5N1 HPAI viruses in different species and breeds of domestic ducks and the effect of route of virus inoculation on the outcome of infection. We determined that the pathogenicity of H5N1 HPAI viruses varies between the two common farmed duck species, with Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata) presenting more severe disease than various breeds of Anas platyrhynchos var. domestica ducks including Pekin, Mallard-type, Black Runners, Rouen, and Khaki Campbell ducks. We also found that Pekin and Muscovy ducks inoculated with two H5N1 HPAI viruses of different virulence, given by any one of three routes (intranasal, intracloacal, or intraocular), became infected with the viruses. Regardless of the route of inoculation, the outcome of infection was similar for each species but depended on the virulence of the virus used. Muscovy ducks showed more severe clinical signs and higher mortality than the Pekin ducks. In conclusion, domestic ducks are susceptible to H5N1 HPAI virus infection by different routes of exposure, but the presentation of the disease varied by virus strain and duck species. This information helps support the planning and implementation of H5N1 HPAI surveillance and control measures in countries with large domestic duck populations.

Infections with avian influenza viruses (AIV) of low and high pathogenicity (LP and HP) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV) are commonly reported in domestic ducks in many parts of the world. However, it’s not clear if co-infections with these viruses affect the severity of the diseases they produce, the amount of virus shed, and transmission of the viruses. In this study we infected domestic ducks with a virulent NDV virus (vNDV) and either a LPAIV or a HPAIV by giving the viruses individually, simultaneously, or sequentially two days apart. No clinical signs were observed in ducks infected or co-infected with vNDV and LPAIV, but co-infection decreased the number of ducks shedding vNDV and the amount of virus shed (P <0.01) at 4 days post inoculation (dpi). Co-infection didn’t affect the number of birds shedding LPAIV, but more LPAIV was shed at 2 dpi (P <0.0001) from ducks inoculated with only LPAIV compared to ducks co-infected with vNDV. Ducks that received the HPAIV with the vNDV simultaneously survived fewer days (P <0.05) compared to the ducks that received the vNDV two days before the HPAIV. Co-infection also reduced transmission of vNDV to naïve contact ducks housed with the inoculated ducks. In conclusion, domestic ducks can become co-infected with vNDV and LPAIV with no effect on clinical signs but with reduction of virus shedding and transmission. These findings indicate that infection with one virus can interfere with replication of another, modifying the pathogenesis and transmission of the viruses.

No abstract

Gulls are widely recognized reservoirs for low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses; however, the subtypes maintained in these populations and/or the transmission mechanisms involved are poorly understood. Although, a wide diversity of influenza viruses have been isolated from gulls, two hemagglutinin subtypes (H13 and H16) are rarely detected in other avian groups, and existing surveillance data suggests they are maintained almost exclusively within gull populations. In order to evaluate the host range of these gull-adapted influenza subtypes and to characterize viral infection in the gull host, we conducted a series of challenge experiments, with multiple North American strains of H13 LPAI virus in ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), chickens (Gallus domesticus), and turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). The susceptibility to H13 LPAI viruses varied between species and viral strain. Gulls were highly susceptible to H13 LPAI virus infection and excreted virus via the oropharynx and cloaca for several days. The quantity and duration of shedding was similar between the two routes. Turkeys and ducks were resistant to infection with most strains of H13 LPAI virus, but low numbers of inoculated birds were infected after challenge with specific viral strains. Chickens were refractory to infection with all strains of H13 LPAI virus they were challenged with. The experimental results presented herein are consistent with existing surveillance data on H13 LPAI viruses in birds, and indicate that influenza viruses of the H13 subtype are strongly host-adapted to gulls, but rare spill-over into aberrant hosts (i.e., turkeys and ducks) can occur.

In a previous study, we found clear differences in pathogenicity and response to vaccination against H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI; HA dade 2.3.4) between Pekin (Anas platyrhynchos var. domestica) and Muscovy (Cairina moschata) ducks vaccinated using a commercial inactivated vaccine (Re-1). The objective of the present study was to further investigate the pathogenicity of H5N1 HPAI viruses in different species of ducks by examining clinical signs and innate immune responses to infection with a different strain of H5N1 HPAI virus (HA clade 1) in two domestic ducks, Pekin and Muscovy, and one wild-type duck, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Protection conferred by vaccination using the Re-1 vaccine against infection with this virus was also compared between Pekin and Muscovy ducks. Differences in pathogenicity were observed among the virus-infected ducks, as the Muscovy ducks died 2 days earlier than did the Pekin and mallard ducks, and they presented more-severe neurologic signs. Conversely, the Pekin and mallard ducks had significantly higher body temperatures at 2 days postinfection (dpi) than did the Muscovy ducks, indicating possible differences in innate immune responses. However, similar expression of innate immune-related genes was found in the spleens of virus-infected ducks at this time point. In all three duck species, there was up-regulation of IFN-alpha, IFN-gamma, IL-6, CCL19, RIG-I, and MHC class I and down-regulation of MHC class II, but variable expression of IL-18 and TLR7. As in our previous study, vaccinated Muscovy ducks showed less protection against virus infection than did Pekin ducks, as evidenced by the higher mortality and higher number of Muscovy ducks shedding virus when compared to Pekin ducks. In conclusion, infection with an H5N1 HPAI virus produced a systemic infection with high mortality in all three duck species; however, the disease was more severe in Muscovy ducks, which also had a poor response to vaccination. The differences in response to virus infection could not be explained by differences in the innate immune responses between the different types of ducks when examined at 2 days dpi, and earlier time points need to be evaluated.