Structural and growth characteristics of two avian reoviruses

Nick, H; Cursiefen, Dagmar; Becht, H.

doi:10.1007/bf01317969

Cited by 54 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Strain F52/70 (Bygrave & Faragher, 1970), isolated in the UK in 1970, was kindly provided by Dr W. Baxendale (Intervet, UK). Strain Cu-1wt was isolated in Germany in 1976 (Nick et al ., 1976). Strain CJ801 was isolated in China in 1980 (Cao et al ., 1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetic, antigenic and pathotypic criteria for the characterization of IBDV strains

Berg

Morales

Eterradossi³

et al. 2004

Avian Pathology

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was the selection and comparison of representative infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) strains. Nine strains of IBDV, isolated at different times and from different geographic regions of Europe and China, were characterized. Batches of all strains were prepared following standardized protocols and checked for the absence of contaminating viruses. Criteria used for their characterization were: (i) the nucleotide sequence of the VP2 variable region, (ii) binding to a panel of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and (iii) virulence in specific pathogen free chickens after infection with a standardized number of median embryo infective doses. Based on the first two criteria, two of nine strains were classified as classical virulent (cv) IBDV (F52/70, Cu-1wt), and five as very virulent (vv) IBDV (849VB, 96108, HK46, GX, Harbin). Remarkably, although a clear-cut difference was demonstrable between European cvIBDV (F52/70 and Cu-1wt) and vvIBDV (849VB and 96108) strains, there was a continuum in the pathogenicity of Chinese vvIBDVs. Our results indicate the probable existence of differences in virulence within IBDV lineages determined on the basis of antigenic typing using monoclonal antibodies and the alignment of the VP2 sequences. This indicates limitations in the analysis of IBDV pathotypes based on the VP2 variable region and emphasizes that these criteria may not be sufficient for the classification of IBDV strains.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetic, antigenic and pathotypic criteria for the characterization of IBDV strains

Berg

Morales

Eterradossi³

et al. 2004

Avian Pathology

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The chicken isolate Cu-1 (Nick et al, 1976) of IBDV represented serotype I. IBDV strain 23/82 isolated from a turkey (Chettle et al, 1985) was kindly supplied by N. E. Reed (Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, U.K.). Both strains were propagated in chicken embryo (CE) cells at 39 °C, and were plaque-purified several times as previously described (Miiller et al, 1986).…”

Section: Viruses and Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The basic structure of the infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV), the aetiological agent of a disease of chickens which results in the destruction of the bursa of Fabricius, has been elucidated (Nick et al, 1976; M/iller et al, 1979) and has been shown to exhibit the structural characteristics of the Birnaviridae (Dobos et al, 1979;Brown, 1986). During the past few years isolates of IBDV from turkeys have been reported to be essentially identical to the chicken strains, but the turkey isolates were not pathogenic and could be distinguished by neutralization (McNulty et al, 1979;Jackwood et al, 1982); a second serotype was therefore established (McFerran et al, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Studies on Structural and Antigenic Properties of Two Serotypes of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus

Becht

Müller

1988

Journal of General Virology

Self Cite

190

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe electrophoretic mobilities of the two genome segments and the structural polypeptides of the chicken strain Cu-1 (serotype I) and the turkey isolate 23/82 (serotype II) of infectious bursal disease virus were compared. There is a close antigenic relationship between the smaller of the two major structural proteins (32K) of both strains. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are induced by the larger protein (40K in Cu-1) which differentiates between the two serotypes. The 40K structural protein also has epitopes which do not induce neutralizing antibodies and which are common to both strains. There is evidence that the antigenic region responsible for the production of neutralizing antibodies is highly conformation-dependent. Passively administered neutralizing antibodies directed against the 40K structural polypeptide of Cu-1 confer protective immunity to susceptible chickens, whereas antibodies directed against the 32K structural protein do not have any protective effect. INTRODUCTIONThe basic structure of the infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV), the aetiological agent of a disease of chickens which results in the destruction of the bursa of Fabricius, has been elucidated (Nick et al., 1976; M/iller et al., 1979) and has been shown to exhibit the structural characteristics of the Birnaviridae (Dobos et al., 1979;Brown, 1986). During the past few years isolates of IBDV from turkeys have been reported to be essentially identical to the chicken strains, but the turkey isolates were not pathogenic and could be distinguished by neutralization (McNulty et al., 1979;Jackwood et al., 1982); a second serotype was therefore established (McFerran et al., 1980). In order to localize the antigenic determinants on the structural proteins of IBDV which are responsible for the induction of neutralizing antibodies, a more detailed comparative analysis of the two types of viruses was necessary. Attempts were therefore made to obtain more precise information about the size of the two genomic segments ofdsRNA and the structural proteins of the turkey strain in relation to the known elements of the chicken virus. The antigenic sites which both types of viruses have in common and those which permit their distinction were traced with monoclonal antibodies. The need for a more precise analysis of the antigenic structure of IBDV was underlined by the attempts of other authors to describe antigenic regions which would lend themselves to the production of a vaccine in Escherichia coli or by peptide synthesis (Fahey et al., 1985a,b;Azad et al., 1986;Hudson et al., 1986).

show abstract

“…Chickens between 3 and 6 weeks of age are highly susceptible for clinical IBD (Cosgrove, 1962;Hirai et al, 1974d;Ley et al, 1983) when protective levels of neutralizing antibody levels are absent. IBDV is a double-stranded, non-enveloped, icosahedral virus (Delmas et al, 2005) with diameter ranging from 55 to 65 nm (Hirai et al, 1974b;Nick et al, 1976). IBDV belongs to the family Birnaviridae, genus Avibirnavirus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anin vivoexperimental model to determine antigenic variations among infectious bursal disease viruses

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a double-stranded RNA virus causing infectious bursal disease in chickens. IBDV undergoes antigenic drift, so characterizing the antigenicity of IBDV plays an important role for identification and selection of vaccine candidates. In this study, an in vivo experimental model was developed to differentiate a new antigenic variant of IBDV. To this end, a hyper-immune serum to IBDV E/Del-type virus was generated in specific pathogen-free chickens and a standard volume of the hyperimmune serum was serially diluted and injected in specific pathogen-free birds via intravenous, subcutaneous, or intramuscular routes. The chickens were bled at different time points in order to evaluate the dynamics of virus neutralization titres. Based on the results, chickens were injected with different serum dilutions by the subcutaneous route. Twenty-four hours later, chickens were bled and then challenged with 100 median chicken infectious doses of the E/Del virus and a new IBDV variant. Chickens were euthanized at 7 days post infection and the bursa of Fabricius was removed for microscopic evaluation to determine the bursal lesion score. The determined virus neutralization titre along with the bursal lesion score was used to determine the breakthrough titre in the in vivo chicken model. Based on the data obtained, an antigenic subtype of IBDV was identified and determined to be different from E/Del. This model is a sensitive model for determination of IBDV antigenicity of non-tissue culture adapted IBDV.

show abstract

Structural and growth characteristics of two avian reoviruses

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Assessment of genetic, antigenic and pathotypic criteria for the characterization of IBDV strains

Assessment of genetic, antigenic and pathotypic criteria for the characterization of IBDV strains

Comparative Studies on Structural and Antigenic Properties of Two Serotypes of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus

Anin vivoexperimental model to determine antigenic variations among infectious bursal disease viruses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About