Translator Disclaimer
1 July 2002 Prevention of Inclusion Body Hepatitis/Hydropericardium Syndrome in Progeny Chickens by Vaccination of Breeders with Fowl Adenovirus and Chicken Anemia Virus
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The hypothesis that an effective protection of progeny chickens against inclusion body hepatitis/hydropericardium syndrome (IBH/HP) can be achieved by dual vaccination of breeders with fowl adenovirus (FAV) serotype 4 and chicken anemia virus (CAV) was tested. Thus, 17-wk-old brown leghorn pullet groups were vaccinated by different schemes including single FAV (inactivated), single CAV (attenuated), FAV and CAV dually, or were not vaccinated (controls). Subsequent progenies of these breeders were challenged with the virulent strains FAV-341 and CAV-10343 following three strategies: 1) FAV-341 intramuscularly (i.m.) at day 10 of age (only FAV-vaccinated and control progenies); 2) FAV CAV i.m. simultaneously at day 10 of age (all progenies); 3) CAV i.m. at day 1 and FAV orally at day 10 of age (all progenies). The induction of IBH/HP in these progenies was evaluated throughout a 10-day period. Both breeder groups vaccinated against FAV and those vaccinated against CAV increased virus neutralizing specific antibodies. Challenge strategy 1 showed 26.6% mortality in control progeny chickens and 13.3% in the progeny of FAV-vaccinated breeders. Presence of lesions in the liver of these groups showed no significant differences (P > 0.05), suggesting a discreet protective effect of the vaccine. Challenge strategy 2 showed 29.4% mortality in controls and 94% of chickens showed hepatic inclusion bodies (HIB). Single CAV vaccination of breeders did not demonstrate a beneficial effect, with both mortality and liver lesions resembling the nonvaccinated controls. FAV vaccination of breeders significantly reduced both mortality (7.4%) and liver lesions (26% HIB) (P < 0.05), providing protection against this challenge strategy. Dual vaccination of breeders with FAV and CAV proved to be necessary to achieve maximum protection of the progeny (no mortality and 7% HIB). Challenge strategy 3 produced no mortality but consistent liver damage in controls (96% HIB). In this case, both CAV and FAV CAV-vaccinated breeders showed best protection results in terms of liver histopathology (8% and 0% HIB, respectively). FAV vaccination alone produced 24% HIB, similar to challenge strategy 2, demonstrating a lower protective effect.

H. Toro, C. González, L. Cerda, M. A. Morales, P. Dooner, and M. Salamero "Prevention of Inclusion Body Hepatitis/Hydropericardium Syndrome in Progeny Chickens by Vaccination of Breeders with Fowl Adenovirus and Chicken Anemia Virus," Avian Diseases 46(3), 547-554, (1 July 2002). https://doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2002)046[0547:POIBHH]2.0.CO;2
Received: 22 August 2001; Published: 1 July 2002
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top