Experimental Velogenic Viscerotropic Newcastle Disease Virus Infection in Chickens Immunologically Impaired by Treatment with Cyclophosphamide

Öz

This study investigated whether lymphocytic depletion following chemical bursectomy influenced the severity of infection and development of lesions in chickens challenged with velogenic viscerotropic Newcastle disease virus (vvNDV). Cockerel chickens treated with cyclophosphamide on days 2, 3 and 4 post-hatch showed loss of weight, atrophy and lymphocytic depletion in the bursa of Fabricius and spleen. At 6 weeks of age, the chickens were assigned to four groups- Bursectomized intramuscularly vvNDV inoculated (BI), bursectomized uninfected (BU), non-bursectomized infected (NBI) and non-bursectomized uninfected (NBU) chickens. The BI and NBI chickens showed significant (P < .05) loss of weight than their uninfected controls. Depression, anorexia, greenish diarrhea, listlessness, tremor, and oculo-nasal discharges were observed in both infected groups, but were more severe and frequent in the NBI than in the BI chickens. Total mortalities were 100% and 95.5% for the NBI and BI chickens, respectively (P > .05). Lesions in both infected groups included atrophy of the bursa, spleen and thymus. Hemorrhages in the proventricular mucosa, intestines and cecal tonsils, as well as congestion and enlargement of the kidneys were significantly (P < .05) more severe and frequent in NBI than BI chickens. Histopathology showed necrosis and depletion of lymphocytes in the three lymphoid organs in both infected groups with more severity in the NBI than BI chickens. These results show that depletion of lymphocytes by treatment with cyclophosphamide may influence the severity of infection and development of lesions in vvNDV infection in cockerel chickens.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bursectomy
• cockerel chickens
• lymphoid organs
• pathogenesis
• velogenic Newcastle disease virus

Siklofosfamid Tedavisiyle Bağışıklık Sistemi Bozulmuş Erkek Civcivlerde Deneysel Velojenik Visserotropik Newcastle Hastalığı Virüsü Enfeksiyonu

Öz

Bu çalışmada, kimyasal bursektomiyi takiben lenfositik tükenmenin, velojenik viskerotropik Newcastle hastalığı virüsü (vvNDV) ile enfekte erkek civcivlerde enfeksiyonun şiddetini ve lezyonların gelişimini etkileyip etkilemediği araştırılmıştır. Kuluçkadan sonraki 2, 3 ve 4. günlerde siklofosfamid ile tedavi edilen erkek civcivlerde kilo kaybı ve bursa Fabricius ve dalakta atrofi ve lenfositik tükenme görülmüştür. Erkek civcivler 6 haftalıkken dört gruba ayrılmıştır: Bursektomize kas içi vvNDV aşılanmış (BI), bursektomize enfekte olmamış (BU), bursektomize enfekte olmamış NBI) ve bursektomize enfekte olmamışlar (NBU). BI ve NBI erkek civcivleri, enfekte olmamış kontrollerine kıyasla önemli ölçüde (P < .05) kilo kaybı göstermiştir. Depresyon, anoreksi, yeşilimsi ishal, halsizlik, titreme ve okülo-nazal akıntılar her iki enfekte grupta da gözlenmiş, ancak (NBI'da BI erkek civcivlerine göre daha şiddetli ve sık görülmüştür. Toplam ölüm oranları NBI ve BI erkek civcivleri için sırasıyla %100 ve %95,5'tir (P > .05). Her iki enfekte gruptaki lezyonlar arasında bursa, dalak ve timus atrofisi yer almıştır. Proventriküler mukoza, bağırsaklar ve çekal tonsillerdeki kanamaların yanı sıra böbreklerdeki tıkanıklık ve genişleme NBI erkek civcivlerinde, BI erkek civcivlerine göre önemli ölçüde (P < ,05) daha şiddetli ve yaygındı. Histopatoloji, her iki enfekte grupta da üç lenfoid organda nekroz ve lenfositlerin tükendiğini, NBI'da BI erkek civcivlerine göre daha şiddetli olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlar, siklofosfamid tedavisi ile lenfositlerin tükenmesinin, erkek civcivlerde vvNDV enfeksiyonun şiddetini ve lezyonların gelişimini etkileyebileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bursektomi
• erkek civcivler
• lenfoid organlar
• patogenez
• velojenik Newcatle hastalığı virüsü

Kaynakça

1. 1. Lamb RA, Collins PL, Kolakofsky D, et al. Paramyxoviridae. In: Fauquet CM, Mayo MA, Maniloff J, Desselberger U, Ball LA. (Eds), Virus Taxonomy. Amsterdam, Elsevier; 2005: 655-668.
2. 2. Amarasinghe GK, Ayllon MA, Bao Y, et al. Taxonomy of the order Mononegavirales: update 2019. Arch Virol. 2019;164:1967-1980.
3. 3. Walker PI, Siddell SG, Lefkowitz EJ, et al. Changes to virus taxonomy and International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Arch Virol. 2019;164:2417-2429.
4. 4. Alexander DJ, Aldous EW, Fuller CM. The long view: a selective review of 40 years of Newcastle disease research. Avian Pathol. 2012;41(4):329-335.
5. 5. Mannan S. Diagnosis and treatment of Newcastle disease of Tiger chicken (Local) at Upazila Veterinary Hospital, Banskhali, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladash; 2021; 4225.
6. 6. Miller PJ, Afonso CL, Spackman E, et al. Evidence for new avian Paramyxovirus Serotype-10 detected in Rockhopper Penguins from the Falkland Islands. J Virol. 2010;84(21):11496-11504.
7. 7. Office of International des Epizootics (OIE). Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. Newcastle disease. Marian Truszezynsllieds. OIE Standard commission publication, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); 2012 version part 2, section 2.1, chapter 2.3.14:1-19.
8. 8. Khorajiya JH, Pandey S, Ghodasara PD, et al. Patho-epidemiological study on Genotype-XIII Newcastle disease infection in commercial vaccinated layer farms. Vet World. 2015;8(3): 372-381.

9. 9. Absalon AE, Cortes-Espinosa DV, Lucio E, Miller PJ, Afonso CL. Epidemiology, control and prevention of Newcastle disease in endemic regions: Latin America. Trop Anim Hlth Prod. 2019;51(5): 1033-1048.
10. 10. Welch CN, Shittu I, Abolnik C, et al. Genomic comparison of Newcastle disease viruses isolated in Nigeria between 2002 and 2015 reveals circulation of highly diverse genotypes and spillover into wild birds. Arch Virol. 2019;164(8):2031-2047.
11. 11. Sahoo N, Bhuyan K, Panda B, et al. Prevalence of Newcastle disease and associated risk factors in domestic chickens in the Indian State of Odisha. Plos One. 2022;17(2):e0264028.
12. 12. Hu Z, He X, Deng J, Liu X. Current situation and future direction of Newcastle disease vaccines. Vet Res. 2022;53(1):99.
13. 13. Mansour SM, ElBakrey RM, Mohamed FF, et al. Avian paramyxovirus Type 1 in Egypt: Epidemiology, evolutionary perspective, and vaccine approach. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:647462.
14. 14. Naz D, Rahman S, Aslam MA, Muhammad F. Newcastle disease virus in poultry with an interface as a human factor. Vet Vaccine. 2022;1(1):1000003.
15. 15. Moustapha A, Talaki E, Akourki A, Ousseini M. Newcastle disease virus in poultry: Current status and control prospects. World Vet J. 2023;13(2):240-249.
16. 16. Jamil F, Aslam L, Ali H, et al. An in-silico study of derivative of Newcastle disease virus epitopes-based vaccine against hemagglutinin neuraminidase protein. J Anim Sci. 2022;13(101): skac375.
17. 17. Alexander DJ. Newcastle disease. Chapter 2.3.14. In Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Paris, France: OIE, the World Organization for Animal Health; 2009: 576-589.
18. 18. Alexander DJ, Senne DA. Newcastle disease and other avian paramyxoviruses and pneumovirus infections. In: Saif, YM (Editor-in-Chief) Fadly, AM; Glisson, JR; McDougald, LR: Nolan, LK and Swayne DE (Eds) Diseases of poultry. (12th edn). Ames, Iowa State University Press; 2008: 75-100.
19. 19. Okoye JOA, Uzoukwu M. Pathogenesis of infectious bursal disease in embryonally bursectomized chickens. Avian Pathol. 1990;19(3):555-569.
20. 20. Okoye JOA, Nwosu C, Onwujiobi CBO, Onuoha AS, Okonkwo PU. Pathogenesis of infectious bursal disease virus infection in cyclophosphamide treated chickens. Avian Pathol. 1992;21(4):615-620.
21. 21. Igwe AO, Ezema WS, Eze DC, Okoye JOA. Experimental velogenic Newcastle disease can be very severe and viscerotropic in chickens but moderate and neurotropic in guinea fowls. Int J Poult Sci. 2014;13(10):582-590.
22. 22. Sharma JM, Lee LF. Suppressive effect of cyclophosphamide on the T-cell system in chickens. Infect Immun. 1977;17(1):227-230.
23. 23. Isogai H, Fujimoto Y, Okada K, Ichijo K. Effect of bursectomy on the pathogenesis of Marek’s disease. Jpn J Vet Res. 1980; 28(4):137-148.
24. 24. Reynolds DL, Maraqa AD. A Technique for inducing B-cell ablation in chickens by in ovo injection of cyclophosphamide. Avian Dis. 1999; 43(3):367-375.
25. 25. Echeonwu GON, Iroegbu CI, Emeruwa, AC. Recovery of Velogenic Newcastle disease virus from dead and healthy free roaming birds in Nigeria. Avian Pathol. 1993;22(2):383-387.
26. 26. Shittu I, Sharma P, Joannis TM, et al. Complete genome sequence of a genotype XVII Newcastle disease virus, isolated from an apparently healthy domestic duck in Nigeria. Gen Announc. 2016;4(1):e01716-15.
27. 27. Okafor LC. Biometry – basic principles and approaches. Onitsha, Nigeria: Geelink; 1992 141-172.
28. 28. Mahgoub HA. An overview of infectious bursal disease. Arch Virol. 2012;157(11):2047-2057.
29. 29. Ezema WS, Eze DC, Shoyinka SVO, Okoye JOA. Atrophy of the lymphoid organs and suppression of antibody response caused by velogenic Newcastle disease virus infection in chickens. Trop Anim Hlth Prod. 2016;48(8):1703-1709.
30. 30. Sá e Silva M, Rissi DR, Swayne DE. Very virulent infectious bursal disease virus produces more-severe disease and lesions in specific-pathogen-free (SPF) leghorns than in SPF broiler chickens. Avian Dis. 2016;60(1):63-66.
31. 31. Kim Y, Brown TP, Pantin-Jackwood MJ. Lesions induced in broiler chickens by cyclophosphamide treatment. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003; 45(3):121-123.
32. 32. Igwe AO, Shittu I, Okoye JOA. Response of cyclophosphamide-treated broiler chickens to challenge with velogenic Newcastle disease virus. J Appl Anim Res. 2018; 46(1):938-946.
33. 33. Sadeyen JR, Kaiser P, Stevens MP, Dzivaa F. A cyclophosphamide sensitive cell compartment is essential for homologous protection conferred by licensed vaccines for the control of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in chickens. Vaccine. 2015;33(31):3624-3627.
34. 34. Brown C, King DJ, Seal BS. Pathogenesis of Newcastle disease in chickens experimentally infected with virus of different virulence. Vet Pathol. 1999;36(2):125-132.
35. 35. Okoye JOA, Agu AO, Chineme CN, Echeonwu GON. Pathological characterization in chicken of a Velogenic Newcastle disease virus isolate from guinea fowl. Revue Elev Med Vet Pays Trop. 2000;53(4):325-330.
36. 36. Oladele SB, Abdu P, Nok AJ, Esievo KAN, Useh NM. Hemagglutination inhibition antibodies, rectaltemperature and total protein of chicken infected with a local Nigerian isolate of velogenic Newcastle disease virus. Vet Res Comm. 2005;29(2):171-179.
37. 37. Dewidar AA, Kilany WH, El-Sawah AA, Shany SA, Dahshan AHM, Hisham I, Ali, A. Genotype VII. 1.1-Based Newcastle disease virus vaccines afford better protection against field isolates in commercial broiler chickens. Animals. 2022;12(13):1696.
38. 38. Al-Murshedy NA, Al-Zubaidi HJ, Alabedi GT, Alzar, Alkaby A. Histopathological and immunohistochemical study of Newcastle disease in chicken in Al-Najaf Province. J Surv Fisheries Sci. 2023;10(3):14-25.
39. 39. Rao MS, Raj GD, Manohar BM. An in vitro evaluation of the virulence of Newcastle disease virus and the vaccines for the chicken reproductive tract. Avian Pathol. 2002;31(5):507-513.
40. 40. Okoroafor OA, Eze PC, Ezema WS, et al. LaSota vaccination may not protect against virus shedding and lesions of velogenic Newcastle disease in commercial turkeys. Trop Anim Hlth Prod. 2018;50(2):345-351.
41. 41. Alexander DJ. Newcastle disease and other avian paramyxoviridae infection. In: Calnek B.W, editor. Diseases of poultry, 10th ed. Ames, Iowa State University Press; 1997:541-569.
42. 42. Wakamatsu N, King DJ, Seal BS, Samal SK, Brown CC. The pathogenesis of Newcastle: a comparison of selected Newcastle disease virus wild-type strains and their infectious clones. Virol. 2006;353(2):333-343.
43. 43. Ojok I, Brown C. An immunohistochemical study of the pathogenesis of viscerotropic Newcastle disease in chickens. J Comp Pathol. 1996;115(3):221-227.
44. 44. Cattoli G, Susta I, Terregino C, Brown C. Newcastle disease: a review of field recognition and current methods of laboratory detection. J Vet Diag Invest. 2011;23(4):637-656.