Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) is recognized as a threat for endangered psittacine birds in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Several diagnostic methods for the detection of beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) infection have been developed but there are few studies comparing the relative merits or sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic test. In this report, the results of PCR, haemagglutination (HA) and haemagglutination inhibition (HI) testing of diagnostic samples collected from 679 samples from a range of psittacine bird species suspected of being infected with BFDV are summarized and compared. There was a strong agreement (kappa = 0?757; P<0?0001) between PCR and HA testing of feather samples and PCR-negative birds were 12?7 times more likely to have HI antibody than PCR-positive birds. False-positive HA results with titres up to 1 : 320 were identified in six feather samples that were PCR negative; the haemagglutination detected in these samples was not inhibited by anti-BFDV antisera and was removed by filtration through a 0?22 mm filter. Similarly, one false-negative PCR result was detected in a feather sample that had a high HA titre (>1 : 40 960) and four false-positive PCR results were detected in a batch of four feather samples. Of 143 birds that were feather PCR positive, only two had detectable HI antibody, and these birds were also feather HA negative, suggesting that they were developing immunity to recent infection. All birds with HI antibody were negative on feather HA testing. The assays confirmed BFDV infection in two endangered swift parrots (Lathamus discolor) and phylogenetic analysis of the sequence data generated from ORF V1 of these isolates provide further evidence of BFDV genotypes clustering in parallel with the Loriidae, Cacatuidae and Psittacidae.

Psittacine beak and feather disease is known to occur in a wide range of psittacine species; however, there are no scientific or credible anecdotal reports of psittacine beak and feather disease occurring in the cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus) despite it being one of the world's most commonly kept companion bird species. Consequently, this has resulted in speculation that the species may have some innate resistance to beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) infection. To investigate this hypothesis we conducted a survey of cockatiels (n=88) at commercial aviaries to investigate whether BFDV infection occurs in cockatiels, and found that all birds were virus-free by polymerase chain reaction and haemagglutination assay and had no detectable antibody titre by haemagglutination-inhibition assay. In addition to this, we sequenced the genome of two BFDV isolates obtained from diseased cockatiel feathers and performed cross-reactivity assays using virus eluted from these feathers and sera from naturally immune psittacine birds. Serological cross-reactivity results and phylogenetic analysis of the nucleotide sequences indicated that the cockatiel virus isolates were serologically and genetically different to other BFDV isolates. This is the first paper to report evidence of an antigenically distinct BFDV in psittacine birds.

Beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) is a significant pathogen of wild Australasian and African psittacine birds. We assessed the immunogenicity of recombinant BFDV capsid (recBFDVcap) to protect against the development of psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD). Long-billed corellas (Cacatua tenuirostris) (n513) received (by injection) 1 ml vaccine containing 10 mg recBFDVcap on day 0 and 0.4 ml vaccine containing 66.8 mg recBFDVcap on day 11. All vaccinated corellas and five non-vaccinated control corellas were given 0.4 ml BFDV suspension [titre5log 2 12 haemagglutination units (HAU) 50 ml

Abstract. The collection of biological material (e.g., blood) directly onto filter paper for subsequent use in laboratory assays such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), has become a common practice. Dried cells or fluid on the paper can be readily rehydrated and retrieved into a standard volume of an appropriate elution buffer but introduces a dilution factor to the sample. The use of a common cutting instrument for excising a standard-sized piece of paper that contains the material also introduces the potential for transferring biological material from one sample to subsequent samples, causing false-positive results by PCR. In the present study, filter-paper-collected blood that contained beak and feather disease virus was used to determine if viral DNA could be transferred between samples by a hole punch used to excise sequential filter papers. It was determined that false-positive results could be obtained at least 13 times after a positive sample. Subsequently, the efficacy of 4 methods of hole punch disinfection, flaming, VirkonS, bleach, and a bleachethanol combination, was assessed. The only effective and practical method to destroy DNA was a method where the hole punch was agitated in commercial bleach, rinsed in water, the water was displaced with 100% ethanol and air-dried. This method was simple, cheap, and relatively rapid, and allowed for the use of a single hole punch for a series of samples, without carryover contamination and consequent false-positive results.

No abstract