Suarez David L
Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, USDA/ARS, 934 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
Biologicals. 2005 Dec;33(4):221-6. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2005.08.003. Epub 2005 Oct 28.
The use of vaccination in poultry to control avian influenza has been increasing in recent years. Vaccination has been primarily with killed whole virus-adjuvanted vaccines. Proper vaccination can reduce or prevent clinical signs, reduce virus shedding in infected birds, and increase the resistance to infection. Historically, one limitation of the killed vaccines is that vaccinated birds cannot be differentiated serologically from naturally infected birds using the commonly available diagnostic tests. Therefore, surveillance for avian influenza becomes much more difficult and often results in trade restrictions because of the inability to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). Several different DIVA strategies have been proposed for avian influenza to overcome this limitation. The most common is the use of unvaccinated sentinels. A second approach is the use of subunit vaccines targeted to the hemagglutinin protein that allows serologic surveillance to the internal proteins. A third strategy is to vaccinate with a homologous hemagglutinin to the circulating field strain, but a heterologous neuraminidase subtype. Serologic surveillance can then be performed for the homologous NA subtype as evidence of natural infection. The fourth strategy is to measure the serologic response to the nonstructural protein 1 (NS1). The NS1 protein is produced in large quantities in infected cells, but it is not packaged in the virion. Since killed vaccines for influenza are primarily made with whole virions, a differential antibody response can be seen between naturally infected and vaccinated animals. However, poultry vaccines are not highly purified, and they contain small amounts of the NS1 protein. Although vaccinated chickens will produce low levels of antibody to the NS1 protein, virus infected chickens will produce higher levels of NS1 antibody, and the two groups can be differentiated. All four DIVA strategies have advantages and disadvantages, and further testing is needed to identify the best strategy to make vaccination a more viable option for avian influenza.
近年来,在家禽中使用疫苗来控制禽流感的情况日益增多。疫苗接种主要采用灭活全病毒佐剂疫苗。适当的疫苗接种可以减轻或预防临床症状,减少感染禽类的病毒 shedding,增强对感染的抵抗力。从历史上看,灭活疫苗的一个局限性在于,使用常用的诊断测试无法在血清学上区分接种疫苗的禽类和自然感染的禽类。因此,禽流感监测变得更加困难,并且由于无法区分感染动物和接种疫苗的动物(DIVA),常常导致贸易限制。针对禽流感已经提出了几种不同的 DIVA 策略来克服这一局限性。最常见的是使用未接种疫苗的哨兵禽类。第二种方法是使用针对血凝素蛋白的亚单位疫苗,这样可以对内部蛋白进行血清学监测。第三种策略是用与流行的田间毒株同源的血凝素,但用异源的神经氨酸酶亚型进行疫苗接种。然后可以针对同源的 NA 亚型进行血清学监测,作为自然感染的证据。第四种策略是测量对非结构蛋白 1(NS1)的血清学反应。NS1 蛋白在感染细胞中大量产生,但它不被包装在病毒粒子中。由于流感灭活疫苗主要由完整病毒粒子制成,在自然感染和接种疫苗的动物之间可以看到不同的抗体反应。然而,家禽疫苗并非高度纯化,它们含有少量的 NS1 蛋白。虽然接种疫苗的鸡会产生低水平的针对 NS1 蛋白的抗体,但病毒感染的鸡会产生更高水平的 NS1 抗体,两组可以区分开来。所有四种 DIVA 策略都有优缺点,需要进一步测试以确定使疫苗接种成为控制禽流感更可行选择的最佳策略。