Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, South Wirral, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
Vaccine. 2010 May 21;28(23):3944-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.03.065. Epub 2010 Apr 12.
Avian metapneumovirus (aMPV) has become an important cause of viral respiratory infections in turkey and chickens. Live and inactivated vaccinations are available worldwide for prevention of disease and economic losses caused by this pathogen. The efficacy of these vaccines is vigorously tested under laboratory conditions prior to use in the field. In this study, a live subtype B aMPV vaccine was administered by spray, drinking water or oculo-oral methods to separate groups of broiler chicks under field conditions. Following this, the chicks were immediately transferred to separate rooms in an experimental isolation house, monitored and challenged with virulent subtype B aMPV. No clinical signs were recorded following the vaccination methods. In the oculo-oral vaccinated chicks, 40-60% of the birds were vaccine virus positive by RT-PCR. In addition, in comparison to other groups, statistically higher levels of aMPV ELISA antibodies were detected. After spray vaccination, the number of chicks positive for the vaccine virus increased gradually from 10% at one week to 30% by 3 weeks post vaccination. Following drinking water vaccination, 30% of chicks were aMPV positive at 1 week but negative by 3 weeks post vaccination. In both, spray and drinking water vaccinated groups, no ELISA antibodies were detected, but when challenged all chicks were protected against disease. At 5 days post challenge, 100% of chicks in the unvaccinated and those vaccinated by spray or drinking water routes but only 20% of the oculo-oral-vaccinated chicks were aMPV positive by RT-PCR. At 10 days post challenge, 10% of chicks in each group were aMPV RT-PCR positive. On challenge, all vaccinated chicks were protected against disease. It appears that when aMPV vaccine is accurately applied to chicks by spray or drinking water routes, both are capable of giving protection against clinical disease equal to that induced in those chicks vaccinated individually by the oculo-oral route.
禽偏肺病毒(aMPV)已成为火鸡和鸡病毒性呼吸道感染的重要原因。目前,全球范围内已有针对该病原体的活疫苗和灭活疫苗用于预防疾病和经济损失。在野外使用之前,这些疫苗的效力会在实验室条件下进行大力测试。在这项研究中,活的 B 亚型 aMPV 疫苗通过喷雾、饮水或眼口途径施用于肉鸡雏鸡的不同组,然后将雏鸡立即转移到实验隔离室的单独房间中进行监测,并接受强毒 B 亚型 aMPV 的攻毒。接种疫苗后,没有观察到临床症状。在眼口接种疫苗的雏鸡中,40-60%的鸡通过 RT-PCR 检测为疫苗病毒阳性。此外,与其他组相比,检测到更高水平的 aMPV ELISA 抗体。喷雾接种后,疫苗病毒阳性鸡的数量从第 1 周的 10%逐渐增加到第 3 周的 30%。饮水接种后,第 1 周 30%的鸡为 aMPV 阳性,但第 3 周时均为阴性。在喷雾和饮水接种组中均未检测到 ELISA 抗体,但在攻毒时所有鸡均免受疾病侵害。攻毒后 5 天,未接种疫苗的鸡和通过喷雾或饮水途径接种疫苗的鸡中 100%的鸡通过 RT-PCR 检测为 aMPV 阳性,但通过眼口途径接种疫苗的鸡中只有 20%为阳性。攻毒后 10 天,每组中的 10%的鸡通过 RT-PCR 检测为 aMPV 阳性。攻毒时,所有接种疫苗的鸡均免受疾病侵害。似乎当 aMPV 疫苗通过喷雾或饮水途径准确地应用于雏鸡时,两种途径都能提供与通过眼口途径单独接种疫苗的鸡相当的临床疾病保护。