Divergent Antibody Responses to Vaccines and Divergent Body Weights of Chicken Lines Selected for High and Low Humoral Responsiveness to Sheep Red Blood Cells

Abstract

Primary and secondary antibody responses to intramuscularly administered proteins of Eschericia coli (F11), Newcastle disease virus (NCD), infectious bronchitis virus (IB), and infectious bursal disease virus (IBD), respectively, were measured at weekly intervals in two chicken lines. The latter had been divergently selected for high and low antibody responses to sheep red blood cells (SRBC), and in a random-bred control line. An oil-based adjuvant was required to induce primary and secondary antibody responses to NCD, IB, and IBD. With respect to F11, elevated antibody responses were found in birds sensitized and boosted to F11 with and without adjuvant. The humoral response to F11 and to all viral antigens was significantly higher in the high (H) line than in the low (L) line, whereas the control (C) line showed intermediate titers. At 5 and 17 weeks of age, L line birds were significantly heavier than birds of the H and the C lines. A negative phenotypic correlation within lines between body weight at 17 weeks of age and antibody titers at 1 week after sensitization was found, but no further correlations between humoral responses and body weight or growth could be established. The present results suggest that selection for enhanced humoral responsiveness to SRBC resulted in enhanced responsiveness to components of several vaccines. Mechanisms underlying the relationship between divergent selection for immune responsiveness and body weight are discussed.

Immunological and Physiological Differences Between Layer- and Broiler Chickens after Concurrent Intratracheal Administration of Lipopolysaccharide and Human Serum Albumin

“…Studies directed to broilers or immune (LPS, HuSA) challenge. It has to be kept in (Miller et al, 1992) or layers (Parmentier et al, 1996; mind, however, that levels of 5-HT and CORT in the Siegel et al, 1982) also suggested that higher body blood were measured at one moment: 6 weeks of age, weight (gain) of broilers and layers negatively affected indicating a status, whereas the immune parameters their humoral immune response, whereas enhanced and BWG exemplified responsiveness of the birds. In egg production had less negative impact to the bird's this study, birds were housed in pens with temperatures humoral immune system.…”

“…Also other non-comparative studies in broilers (Parmentier et al, 2008) and (selected) layer lines suggested that breeding towards a higher body weight (gain) of broilers negatively affected the humoral immune response while the genetic changes of layers towards egg production had less negative impact on the birds immune system. A higher body weight (gain) in layer lines was also related with lower immune competence (Parmentier et al, 1996;Siegel and Gross, 1980;Siegel et al, 1982). A dysfunction of the broiler's specific cellular and humoral immune system has been proposed to underlie the health problems and enhanced disease sensitivity after pressure on the immune system (Miller et al, 1992;Koenen et al, 2002).…”

Response to withdrawal of vitamin and trace mineral premixes from finisher diet in broiler chickens under the hot and humid tropical condition

“…Although testosterone may influence humoral and cell-mediated immune responses (Chen et al 2009), it may not be a relevant explanation in broiler chickens (Shore et al 1993). However, growth rate differences have been correlated with antibody response (Dunnington et al 1993;Parmentier et al 1996). It seems that the higher growth rate of male chickens comes, at least partially, at the cost of their humoral immune response.…”

A comparison of two methods for prediction of response and rates of inbreeding in selected populations with the results obtained in two selection experiments

“…No distinction was made between males and females in the Dutch experiment whereas a difference of Ab titre exists: females have a higher Ab titre against SRBC than males [20] therefore, the trend in Figure 1 was an average over sexes.…”