Histopathological evaluation of the effects of live Infectious bursal disease vaccine originated from WF2512 strain on bursa Fabricius in the broilers

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 250 - 258, 31.08.2022

Mehmet Burak Ateş , Özgür Özdemir , Zeynep Çelik , Rabia Salik , Osman Dağar , Ayşegül Bulut , Ayşenur Tural

https://doi.org/10.31797/vetbio.1069954

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Infectious bursal disease (IBD) is a viral disease that causes significant economic losses in young chickens, characterized by lymphoid depletion and inflammation in the bursa Fabricius (BF). The incidence of the disease shows an increasing trend all over the world. Active and passive immunization is very important as well as strict hygiene measures in combating outbreaks. However, the fact that live-attenuated vaccines (mild, intermediate, hot) used for this purpose cause immunosuppression because of bursal damage is seen as an important limitation. In this study, it was aimed to histopathologically investigate the effects of commercial IBD vaccines originating from WF2512 (intermediate plus/hot, orally with drinking water) on BF under routine broiler rearing conditions. For this, BFs of 55 Ross 308 hybrid breed chickens (50 test, 5 controls) from five different broiler farms were used. In addition to standard vaccines, the IBD vaccine was given on day 15, and five samples from each farm were obtained 10 days later (25th day). After the first sampling, the second BF sampling was performed at the age of 38 days. Histopathological bursal lesion score was applied to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine. Accordingly, it was determined that the bursal lesion score, which increased slightly to moderately in the first samples, decreased in the second samples (27-61%). This was accepted as an indication that the bursal damage, which increased with IBD vaccine administration, diminishes over time and that histological regeneration was increased.

Keywords

Bursa Fabricius, Histopathology, Immunosuppression, Infectious bursal disease

References

• Berg, T. P. (2000). Acute infectious bursal disease in poultry: a review. Avian pathology, 29(3), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450050045431
• Brandt, M., Yao, K., Liu, M., Heckert, R. A., & Vakharia, V. N. (2001). Molecular determinants of virulence, cell tropism, and pathogenic phenotype of infectious bursal disease virus. J Virol, 75(24), 11974-11982. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.75.24.11974-11982.2001
• Butter, C., Sturman, T. D. M., Baaten, B. J. G., & Davison, T. F. (2003). Protection from infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV)-induced immunosuppression by immunization with a fowlpox recombinant containing IBDV-VP2. Avian Pathology, 32(6), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450310001610686 Castro, M. J., Saume, E., Díaz, C., García, J., & Perozo, F. (2009). Bursal Restoration After Intermediate And Intermediate Plus Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Vaccination.
• Commission. (2002). European Pharmacopoeia Avian infectious bursal disease (Gumboro disease) vaccine (live), freeze-dried. European Directorate for Quality of Medicine.
• Cosgrove, A. (1962). An apparently new disease of chickens: avian nephrosis. Avian Diseases, 6(3), 385-389.
• Council, N. R. (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry: Ninth Revised Edition, 1994. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/2114
• Davison, F., Kaspers, B., & Schat, K. A. (2008). Avian immunology.
• Dey, S., Pathak, D. C., Ramamurthy, N., Maity, H. K., & Chellappa, M. M. (2019). Infectious bursal disease virus in chickens: prevalence, impact, and management strategies. Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 10, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S185159
• Edwards, K. R., Muskett, J. C., & Thornton, D. H. (1982). Duration of immunosuppression caused by a vaccine strain of infectious bursal disease virus. Res Vet Sci, 32(1), 79-83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6283614
• Eterradossi, N., & Saif, Y. M. (2020). Infectious Bursal Disease. In D. E. Swayne (Ed.), Diseases of poultry (14th ed., pp. 257-280). Wiley.
• Eterradossi, N., Toquin, D., Rivallan, G., & Guittet, M. (1997). Modified activity of a VP2-located neutralizing epitope on various vaccine, pathogenic and hypervirulent strains of infectious bursal disease virus. Arch Virol, 142(2), 255-270.
• Ezeokoli, C. D., Ityondo, E. A., Nwannenna, A. I., & Umoh, J. U. (1990). Immunosuppression and histopathological changes in the bursa of Fabricius associated with infectious bursal disease vaccination in chicken. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis, 13(4), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-9571(90)90086-9
• Hair-Bejo, M., Ng, M., & Ng, H. (2004). Day old vaccination against infectious bursal disease in broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science, 3(2), 124-128.
• Henry, C. W., Brewer, R. N., Edgar, S. A., & Gray, B. W. (1980). Studies on Infectious Bursal Disease in Chickens: 2. Scoring Microscopic Lesions in the Bursa of Fabricius, Thymus, Spleen, and Kidney in Gnotobiotic and Battery Reared White Leghorns Experimentally Infected with Infectious Bursal Disease Virus. Poultry Science, 59(5), 1006-1017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0591006
• Hitchner, S. (1970). Infectivity of infectious bursal disease virus for embryonating eggs. Poultry Science, 49(2), 511-516.
• Hon, C. C., Lam, T. T., Yip, C. W., Wong, R. T., Shi, M., Jiang, J., . . . Leung, F. C. (2008). Phylogenetic evidence for homologous recombination within the family Birnaviridae. J Gen Virol, 89(Pt 12), 3156-3164. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.2008/004101-0
• Iván, J., Nagy, N., Magyar, A., Kacskovics, I., & Mészáros, J. (2001). Functional restoration of the bursa of Fabricius following in ovo infectious bursal disease vaccination. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 79(3), 235-248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-2427(01)00267-7
• Kim, I. J., Gagic, M., & Sharma, J. M. (1999). Recovery of antibody-producing ability and lymphocyte repopulation of bursal follicles in chickens exposed to infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Dis, 43(3), 401-413.
• Luna, L. G. (1968). Routine Staining Prosedures. In Manual of histologic staining methods of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (3.ed ed., pp. 32-44). McGaw-Hill Book Company.
• Mazariegos, L. A., Lukert, P. D., & Brown, J. (1990). Pathogenicity and immunosuppressive properties of infectious bursal disease "intermediate" strains. Avian Dis, 34(1), 203-208.
• Müller, H., Mundt, E., Eterradossi, N., & Islam, M. R. (2012). Current status of vaccines against infectious bursal disease. Avian Pathology, 41(2), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2012.661403 Sapats, S. I., & Ignjatovic, J. (2000). Antigenic and sequence heterogeneity of infectious bursal disease virus strains isolated in Australia. Arch Virol, 145(4), 773-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050050670
• Shaw, I., & Davison, T. F. (2000). Protection from IBDV-induced bursal damage by a recombinant fowlpox vaccine, fpIBD1, is dependent on the titre of challenge virus and chicken genotype. Vaccine, 18(28), 3230-3241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(00)00133-x
• Thornton, D. H., & Pattison, M. (1975). Comparison of vaccines against infectious bursal disease. Journal of comparative pathology, 85(4), 597-610. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9975(75)90126-7