Onset of Progeny Immunity against Viral Arthritis/Tenosynovitis after Experimental Vaccination of Parent Breeder Chickens and Cross-Immunity against Six Reovirus Isolates

Rau, W. E.; Heide, L. van der; Kalbac, M.; Girshick, Theodore

doi:10.2307/1589802

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sahu and Olson (1975) confirmed this observation when they classified nine U.S. isolates into four types using a constant virus-varying serum plaque reduction technique. Wood et al (1980) compared the reovirus strain SI 133, which has been used in vaccination trials in the U.S.A. (Rau et al, 1980), with five other reoviruses from the U.K., Germany and U.S.A. On the basis of virus neutralisation tests they grouped the six strains into three serotypes. Prototype strains of these three groups (including SI 133) were then compared with the five Japanese serotypes of Kawamura et al (1965) and the four U.S. serotypes of Sahu and Olson (1975) and they were able to show that there were at least 11 avian reovirus serotypes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological characteristics of avian reoviruses of Australian origin

Robertson

Wilcox

1984

Avian Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe antigenic relationship of plaque purified avian reoviruses isolated from commercial chickens in Australia was determined with a serum neutralisation procedure using antisera prepared in rabbits. Ten selected isolates were assigned to three groups based upon relatedness values determined by cross-neutralisation studies. Considerable crossreactivity was demonstrated against heterologous types and the three groups were considered to be subtypes rather than distinct serotypes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological characteristics of avian reoviruses of Australian origin

Robertson

Wilcox

1984

Avian Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New isolates of ARV seem to differ from the well described strains used in commercial vaccines (Lublin and others 2011). Vaccination of broiler breeders is essential to protect progenies against infection via maternally derived antibodies (Eidson and others 1979), although the full effect is only given when progenies are challenged with homologous serotypes (Rau andothers 1980, Wood andothers 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of a new reovirus causing substantial losses in broiler production in France, despite routine vaccination of breeders

Troxler

Rigomier²,

Bilić

et al. 2013

Veterinary Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous cases of tenosynovitis appeared in France causing high morbidity in free-range and standard broilers. The main clinical findings were lameness, stunting and non-uniform bodyweights. Although the natural mortality was low, the economic losses due to birds that had to be removed from the flock prematurely, downgrading of carcases and lower average weights at slaughter were substantial. Postmortem examinations, bacteriological, virological and serological examination confirmed the aetiology of avian orthoreovirus (ARV)-induced tenosynovitis. The isolated ARVs were analysed serologically and genetically. Sequencing of σC RT-PCR products and phylogenetic analysis revealed a new type of ARV. The virus was not neutralised in serum neutralisation test using monovalent sera from vaccinated chickens. Together with the flock data, epidemiology of these recent reovirus outbreaks in France was reconstructed. It is concluded that these reovirus isolates differ serologically and genetically from the well described reovirus isolates used in commercial vaccines which were not capable of preventing the disease. The outbreaks resulted in substantial losses in broilers from vaccinated breeders.

show abstract

“…A third reovirus challenge model is based on scoring of microscopic lesions in the tendons (Van der Heide et al, 1976, 1983Eidson et al, 1979;Rau et al, 1980). A disadvantage of this model is that the lesions scored need not be related to the challenge virus, but may have been induced by weight stress, the vaccine itself, or by other infectious agents such as Staphylococcus aureus (Kibenge et al, 1982) and Mycoplasma synoviae (Kleven, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reovirus challenge model applicable in commercial broilers after live vaccination

Loon¹,

Suurland²,

Marel³

2002

Avian Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of live reovirus vaccines may be determined by challenge via the foot pad route 3 to 4 weeks after vaccination. Swelling and discoloration in the foot pad and shank are scored for a period of 14 days. The major disadvantages of this challenge model are the subjective judgement of gross foot pad and/or shank lesions, that it is very difficult to induce lesions in broilers, and that it causes animal suffering. Other reovirus challenge models are based on reisolation of the virus from different tissues or on scoring microscopic lesions in the tendons. Some disadvantages of these models are that they either cannot be used after vaccination with live reovirus because they cannot discriminate between vaccine and challenge virus or that the microscopic lesions scored need not necessarily be related to the challenge virus but may have been induced by other factors. Therefore, we have attempted to develop a reovirus challenge model that was an improvement on the existing ones, using isolation of reovirus from different organs followed by specific detection of the challenge virus with a monoclonal antibody that can discriminate between challenge and vaccine virus. The reovirus challenge model was examined in specific pathogen free (SPF) White Leghorn chickens and commercial broilers. In vivo studies were conducted to examine the efficacy of an attenuated reovirus vaccine in SPF White Leghorn chickens and commercial broilers with maternal immunity against reovirus. No challenge virus could be detected in any of the organs of the vaccinated chickens 3 and 10 days after challenge. In contrast, challenge virus could be isolated from the unvaccinated control group. At an increased challenge dose all unvaccinated challenge control birds were positive, while the vaccinated chickens were protected. It was shown that 1-day-old vaccination in the presence of maternal immunity was effective. It seemed that protection induced in broilers by the attenuated reovirus vaccine may not have been entirely humoral because in protected birds no antibodies against reovirus were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent at the time of challenge. Protection in these birds might therefore have been induced by cellular immunity.

show abstract

Onset of Progeny Immunity against Viral Arthritis/Tenosynovitis after Experimental Vaccination of Parent Breeder Chickens and Cross-Immunity against Six Reovirus Isolates

Cited by 28 publications

References 6 publications

Serological characteristics of avian reoviruses of Australian origin

Serological characteristics of avian reoviruses of Australian origin

Identification of a new reovirus causing substantial losses in broiler production in France, despite routine vaccination of breeders

A reovirus challenge model applicable in commercial broilers after live vaccination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About