Evaluation of a positive marker of avian influenza vaccination in ducks for use in H5N1 surveillance

James, Cassandra M.; Foong, Yvonne Y.; Mansfield, J.P.; Vind, Azita Rezazadeh; Fenwick, Stanley G.; Ellis, T.M.

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.08.008

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The previous studies showed that the vaccine combined 70M adjuvant, Freund's complete adjuvant, or incomplete Freund's adjuvant were able to induce similar antibody responses, but 70M adjuvant vaccine caused obviously much less inflammatory response after inoculation [11-14]. The avian influenza vaccine emulsified with 70M adjuvant prepared provided a good protection to immunized chicken [15-17]. Vaccine conjugated 70M adjuvant induced not only humoral immune responses, but also strong cellular immune responses after immunizing mice [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of several adjuvants in avian influenza vaccine to chickens and ducks

Liu

et al. 2011

Virol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of three different adjuvants, mineral oil, Montanide™ ISA 70M VG, and Montanide™ ISA 206 VG, were evaluated on reverse genetics H5N3 avian influenza virus cell cultured vaccine. The immune results of SPF chickens after challenging with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus demonstrated that mineral oil adjuvant group and 70M adjuvant group provided 100% protection efficiency, but 206 adjuvant group provided only 40%. Statistical analysis indicated that the protection effects of mineral oil adjuvant group and the 70M adjuvant showed no significant difference to each other, but with significant difference to 206 adjuvant group. All three groups could induce high titres of antibody after immunizing SPF ducks, but there was no significant difference among them. The immunization effect of 70M adjuvant group on SPF chickens were the best and showed significant difference compared with optimized 70Mi Montanide™ eight series adjuvants groups. These results suggest that 70M adjuvant could be a novel adjuvant for preparing avian influenza vaccine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of several adjuvants in avian influenza vaccine to chickens and ducks

Liu

et al. 2011

Virol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This concentration had been shown to be highly immunogenic in previous studies when combined with inactivated H6N2 avian influenza virus in chickens and ducks [24, 25]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Antibody to TT was measured by both a competitive ELISA (C-ELISA) and an indirect ELISA as described previously [25]. The antigen used for ELISA plate coating in both tests was purified tetanus toxoid (List Biological Laboratories, Inc., CA, USA) at optimized dilution in 0.05 M carbonate-bicarbonate buffer, pH 9.6.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Subunit H5 Vaccine and an Inactivated H5N2 Avian Influenza Marker Vaccine in Ducks Challenged with Vietnamese H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus

Chua

Leung

Fang

et al. 2010

Influenza Research and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The protective efficacy of a subunit avian influenza virus H5 vaccine based on recombinant baculovirus expressed H5 haemagglutinin antigen and an inactivated H5N2 avian influenza vaccine combined with a marker antigen (tetanus toxoid) was compared with commercially available inactivated H5N2 avian influenza vaccine in young ducks. Antibody responses, morbidity, mortality, and virus shedding were evaluated after challenge with a Vietnamese clade 1 H5N1 HPAI virus [A/VN/1203/04 (H5N1)] that was known to cause a high mortality rate in ducks. All three vaccines, administered with water-in-oil adjuvant, provided significant protection and dramatically reduced the duration and titer of virus shedding in the vaccinated challenged ducks compared with unvaccinated controls. The H5 subunit vaccine was shown to provide equivalent protection to the other two vaccines despite the H5 antibody responses in subunit vaccinated ducks being significantly lower prior to challenge. Ducks vaccinated with the H5N2 marker vaccine consistently produced antitetanus toxoid antibody. The two novel vaccines have attributes that would enhance H5N1 avian influenza surveillance and control by vaccination in small scale and village poultry systems.

show abstract

“…Importantly, protection against HPAI H5N1 virus afforded by the avian influenza virus marker vaccine (TT/H5N2) was equal to the homologous avian influenza virus vaccine (H5N2) in ducks and did not interfere with antibody responses to influenza virus antigens contained in the vaccine [20]. Therefore, evaluation studies of the TT marker for avian influenza vaccination encompassed LPAI H6N2 and HPAI H5N1 vaccinated ducks in Australia and Hong Kong SAR, respectively [19,20]. Moreover, the TT marker has the potential to be used for detection of silent infection in vaccinated ducks, with the development of an anamnestic response to H5 in vaccinated ducks infected with HPAI H5N1 virus [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the anti-N1 DIVA strategy has not been evaluated in ducks despite ducks being the largest poultry market in China and Vietnam. We validated the TT marker approach in ducks and found that H6N2/TT vaccination induced TT seroconversion in twice-vaccinated Muscovy ducks, which persisted out to 19 weeks in contrast to a decline in antibody titre to AIV after 6 weeks post-vaccination [19]. Evidence of TT marker vaccination in ducks was performed using a competitive ELISA and a vaccine dose double that used for chickens, as ducks are well known to be poor antibody responders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Vaccine Control of Avian Influenza H5N1 in Poultry: Need for a Positive Marker

Berry¹

2012

J Vaccines Vaccin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus strains have emerged as zoonotic viral pathogens over the last decade and have eluded our serious attempts of control in domestic poultry by vaccination, with numerous countries continuing to have epidemic waves. Although the biology and genomics of H5N1 influenza viruses are well characterized so far, viral outbreaks still occur in domestic poultry, posing a dangerous threat of human transmission. There are two main types of contemporary inactivated vaccines, namely whole virus vaccines and virus vaccines engineered by reverse genetics, both of which are administered with adjuvant to hatchlings and optimally require a booster. However, determinants of vaccine efficacy need to be considered distinctly in chickens versus ducks on a country basis. There is a critical need for detection of infection and vaccination of domestic poultry to control potentially deadly but silent infection in vaccinated flocks. A positive vaccine marker strategy using tetanus toxoid offers advantages for more effective control programs of HPAI including improved capacity for early detection of virus outbreaks and indisputable data for surveillance of vaccinated flocks in vaccination control programs for backyard and village poultry, highly desirable in endemic regions. A DIVA strategy that has been developed for use in Europe exploits a H5N2 vaccine containing a heterologous NA antigen to the circulating H5N1 avian influenza virus [11]. The heterologous NA DIVA approach is based on detection of animals with positive anti-N1 antibody responses before a detectable rise in the flock H5 antibody levels but the anamnestic response in vaccinated poultry to H5 will develop more rapidly than the primary antibody response to N1. Thus, a primary antibody response to the different N subtype to that given in the vaccine takes a longer time to develop than a recall memory antibody response to the H5 antigen, allowing unmonitored virus spread throughout the flock. Current guidelines for serological DIVA testing in Europe, requiring only small sample sizes of 5-10 birds tested for NA antibody, would only provide assurance of detecting infection at the 95% confidence level if over 30% of poultry in the flock have been exposed to field virus [12]. This would likely take at least 3 weeks from introduction of infection to allow detection (one week for the virus to infect sufficient numbers of birds in the flock and a further 2 weeks for development of primary antibody responses in infected birds), a time when infection may no longer be active in the flock [13]. Not all exposed vaccinated poultry will develop antibodies to N1 in the virulent field strain due to limited replication in vaccinated animals [14]. Use of homologous NA antigens in vaccines, particularly for ducks, precludes use of the anti-N1 DIVA strategy. Other DIVA approaches for poultry based on negative markers include anti-NS1 and anti-NP antibody testing for recombinant live virus vector vaccines [15], including rHVT-H5, rNDV-H5 a...

show abstract

Evaluation of a positive marker of avian influenza vaccination in ducks for use in H5N1 surveillance

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of several adjuvants in avian influenza vaccine to chickens and ducks

Evaluation of several adjuvants in avian influenza vaccine to chickens and ducks

Evaluation of a Subunit H5 Vaccine and an Inactivated H5N2 Avian Influenza Marker Vaccine in Ducks Challenged with Vietnamese H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus

Vaccine Control of Avian Influenza H5N1 in Poultry: Need for a Positive Marker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About