Evaluating Viral Interference Between Infectious Bronchitis Virus and Newcastle Disease Virus Vaccine Strains Using Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction

Gelb, Jack; Ladman, B. S.; Shapiro, Marla; Campion, L. R.

doi:10.1637/1933-5334(2007)2[e10:evibib]2.0.co;2

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to França's study, although co-infection of chickens with both viruses was observed, no reduction was observed in humoral immune response. This is consistent with the findings of Gelb (2007) in relation to the co-infection of broilers with IBV and lNDV [Gelb et al, 2007;França et al, 2014].…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Viral Interference Between Lentogenic Newcsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of the Viral Interference between Lentogenic Newcastle Disease Virus (Lasota) and Avian Influenza Virus (H9N2) using Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction in SPF Chicken

Fazel

Mehrabanpour

2018

Braz. J. Poult. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lentogenic Newcastle disease virus (lNDV) such as Lasota strain and low pathogenicity avian influenza such as H9N2 virus are two of the most economically important viruses affecting poultry worldwide, and little attention in recent years has been paid to simultaneous infections in chickens with these two viruses for the reason that co-infection do occur but are not easily detected. In the present study, chickens were inoculated with lNDV (Lasota) and LPAIV (A/chicken/Tehran/ZMT-173/99(H9N2)) simultaneously or sequentially three days apart. Oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs were collected from chickens from 1 to 14 days after inoculation. RRT-PCR for AIV and NDV detection was performed. The rate of viral shedding was measured within 14 days. No clinical symptoms were observed during the experiment however the pattern of virus shed was different with co-infection, thus comparing the results obtained from viral shedding showed that AIV is a much stronger agent than NDV in the occurrence of viral interference. This is due to the fact that in simultaneous inoculation, AIV replication delayed and reduced NDV replication, while replication of Lasota in simultaneous or pre-inoculated inoculation could not significantly disrupt H9N2 virus replication. These findings indicate that the infection with one virus can interfere with the replication of another, modifying the pathogenesis of the viruses. So, infection of the host with both viral agents simultaneously causes higher shedding of LPAIV than lNDV in OP and CL areas. In conclusion, coinfection with LPAVI in chickens did not impact clinical signs but affected the replication dynamics of these viruses.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of the Viral Interference Between Lentogenic Newcsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of the Viral Interference between Lentogenic Newcastle Disease Virus (Lasota) and Avian Influenza Virus (H9N2) using Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction in SPF Chicken

Fazel

Mehrabanpour

2018

Braz. J. Poult. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, additional trends in the industry place more demands on vaccination as a method of disease control as a result of the desire for safe convenient live vaccines that are delivered by mass application, preferably in the hatchery, unaffected by maternally-derived antibodies, which provide long lasting immunity after one dose. On the other hand, a large number of live vaccines are required to be given at a young age to chickens sometimes causing difficulties with compatibility, vaccine reactions and potentially reversion to virulence (Guy et al, 1991;Gelb et al, 2007;Müller et al, 2012;Landman et al, 2017). Live vaccines based on HVT as a vector have played an important role in meeting many of the aforementioned demands and have significantly improved some of these aspects, thus improving the welfare of chickens and user convenience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of a turkey herpesvirus double construct vaccine (HVT-ND-IBD) against challenge with different strains of Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease and Marek’s disease viruses

Hulten¹,

Cruz-Coy²,

Gergen³

et al. 2020

Avian Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A double construct vaccine of turkey herpesvirus (HVT) was prepared that contains the fusion (F) gene from Newcastle disease virus (NDV) and the viral protein 2 (VP2) gene from infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV). Safety of the vaccine (HVT-ND-IBD) was confirmed and efficacy was evaluated after subcutaneous (SC) vaccination at 1 day of age or the in ovo route of vaccination. Challenges were performed with velogenic NDV strains (Texas GB and Herts Weybridge 33/56), with different strains of IBDV (classical strain STC; very virulent strain CS89 and variant E strain) and with Marek's disease virus (MDV) strain RB1B. Vaccination with HVT-ND-IBD induced a high level of protection against these challenges. Vaccination with HVT is often combined with Rispens CVI988 vaccine and live ND vaccines for higher and earlier, MD and ND protection, respectively. HVT-ND-IBD vaccination in combination with these vaccines showed MD protection as early as 4 days post vaccination and ND protection as early as 2 weeks post vaccination. The long protection as seen with HVT vaccination was confirmed by demonstrating protection against NDV up to 60 weeks. Finally, to evaluate the performance of the vaccine in commercial birds with maternally-derived antibodies, two field trials were performed, using in ovo vaccination in broilers and SC vaccination in combination with Rispens CVI988 vaccine in layer-type birds. The efficacy was confirmed for all components by challenges. These results demonstrate that HVT-ND-IBD is a safe and highly efficacious vaccine for simultaneous control of ND, IBD and MD. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS. A double construct HVT vaccine with the NDV F and the IBDV VP2 genes was prepared.. The vaccine protects against three important diseases: MDV, NDV and IBDV.. In ovo and sub-cutaneous vaccination was evaluated in the field in commercial chickens.

show abstract

“…Multivalent vaccines should ideally generate a protective immune response to each of their constituents that is equivalent to that achieved when they are administered as monovalent vaccines. Unfortunately, there are situations where combining antigens in a vaccine formulation results in reduced immunogenicity and/or protection from disease . There are several potential causes for reduced immunogenicity of multivalent vaccines, which include: physical or chemical interactions including incompatibility of antigens or interference of additives (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunogenicity of Potomac horse fever vaccine when simultaneously co‐administered with rabies vaccine in a multivalent vaccine or as two monovalent vaccines at separate sites

McKenzie

Funk

Trager

et al. 2019

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackgroundPotomac horse fever (PHF) is a potentially fatal enterocolitis of horses caused by Neorickettsia risticii. The disease was originally recognised almost 40 years ago in the state of Maryland in the US. It is now known to occur in many areas of North America, as well as having been described in South America and Europe. Monocomponent PHF vaccines are available, but clinical protection with vaccination has been reported to be inconsistent.ObjectivesThis study was designed to assess the immunogenicity of a commercially available Potomac Horse Fever (PHF) vaccine when administered as either a monovalent PHF vaccine simultaneously co‐administered with a separate monovalent Rabies vaccine or as a multivalent PHF/Rabies vaccine in horses.Study designRandomised parallel group trial.MethodsNinety‐one client or University owned horses participated in this open‐label randomised study, with 45 horses receiving the monovalent vaccines at separate sites and 46 receiving the multivalent vaccine at a single site. Serum PHF IFA titres were determined twice prior to vaccination and at 1, 2 and 3 months after vaccination.ResultsBoth vaccination protocols exhibited poor immunogenicity, with only one‐third of all the animals demonstrating seroconversion, defined as an increase in titre of greater than 400 over baseline, at any time point after vaccination. The monovalent PHF vaccine exhibited significantly greater immunogenicity in terms of the number of horses exhibiting seroconversion, as compared to the multivalent vaccine, at one (20 vs. 11, P = 0.03) and two (18 vs. 9, p = 0.02) months post vaccination. The monovalent PHF vaccine also exhibited significantly greater immunogenicity in terms of the median (interquartile range) IFA titres, as compared to the multivalent vaccine, at one (800 [200–1600] vs. 400 [200–800], P = 0.009) and 2 months (400 [200–1600] vs. 400 [100–800], P = 0.02) post vaccination. There was no significant difference between groups at 3 months in either seroconversion rate or median IFA titers.Main limitationsThis study did not assess the actual protective effects of PHF vaccination but rather used the serologic response to vaccination as a surrogate biomarker of immunity.ConclusionsThe multivalent PHF/Rabies vaccine exhibited lower immunogenicity as compared to the monovalent PHF vaccine co‐administered with a separate Rabies vaccine.

show abstract

Evaluating Viral Interference Between Infectious Bronchitis Virus and Newcastle Disease Virus Vaccine Strains Using Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluation of the Viral Interference between Lentogenic Newcastle Disease Virus (Lasota) and Avian Influenza Virus (H9N2) using Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction in SPF Chicken

Evaluation of the Viral Interference between Lentogenic Newcastle Disease Virus (Lasota) and Avian Influenza Virus (H9N2) using Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction in SPF Chicken

Efficacy of a turkey herpesvirus double construct vaccine (HVT-ND-IBD) against challenge with different strains of Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease and Marek’s disease viruses

Immunogenicity of Potomac horse fever vaccine when simultaneously co‐administered with rabies vaccine in a multivalent vaccine or as two monovalent vaccines at separate sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About