Newcastle Disease Vaccination using Mucoadhesive and Conventional Oral Delivery in Commercial Broilers: Serological, Heterophil: Lymphocyte ratio and Lymphoid Histopathological Changes

Abstract

Newcastle Disease (ND) threatens poultry productivity worldwide. Vaccination remains central to control, but conventional oral delivery often yields short-lived immunity. Mucoadhesive systems are an alternative delivery method that improves mucosal antigen retention and immunogenicity. This study compared the serological, physiological, and immunoarchitectural responses of broiler chickens administered oral vaccination against ND with local or imported LaSota strains delivered either in water or via cashew gum-alginate microbeads. One hundred and five broiler chicks were assigned to six groups: unvaccinated controls, blank microbeads, imported LaSota in water (ILW) or microbeads (IML), and local LaSota in water (LLW) or microbeads (LML). Immune responses were assessed using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay, heterophil-to-lymphocyte (H:L) ratio, and histopathology of lymphoid tissues. The mucoadhesive local LaSota group (LML) produced the highest and most durable antibody titres (GMT ≥ 203.2, 14 and 35 days post-vaccination), significantly outperforming all others (P < .05). LLW peaked earlier but decayed rapidly, while imported vaccines (ILW, IML) showed weak responses. Histopathology revealed strong germinal centre formation in the spleen and jejunum of mucoadhesive groups. H:L ratios were significantly lower in these groups (P < .05), suggesting potent immunity without physiological stress. Growth performance was unaffected across treatments. Mucoadhesive microbeads enhanced ND vaccine efficacy by sustaining antibody production, improving lymphoid organization, and reducing stress. The superior response of the local strain emphasizes the importance of antigenic alignment with circulating variants. Results provide serological, histological, and welfare evidence for adopting mucoadhesive delivery as a practical strategy in ND control, particularly for backyard poultry.

Keywords

• Microbeads
• mucoadhesive
• newcastle disease
• oral vaccines
• poultry vaccination
• serology

Kaynakça

1. 1.Erdaw MM, Beyene WT. Trends, prospects and thesocio-economic contribution of poultry production in sub-Saharan Africa. Published online 2022.
2. 2.Jones P, Niemi J, Christensen JP, Tranter R, Bennett R. Areview of the financial impact of production diseases inpoultry production systems. Anim Prod Sci.2018;59(9):1585-1597.
3. 3.Rima B, Balkema-Buschmann A, Dundon WG, et al. ICTVvirus taxonomy profile: Paramyxoviridae. J Gen Virol.2019;100(12):1593-1594.
4. 4.Alexander DJ. Newcastle disease. Br Poult Sci.2001;42(1):5-22.
5. 5.FAO. Decision Tools for Family Poultry Development.FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 16.Published online 2014.
6. 6.Dimitrov KM, Afonso CL, Yu Q, Miller PJ. Newcastledisease vaccines—A solved problem or a continuouschallenge? Vet Microbiol. 2017;206:126-136.
7. 7.Mao Q, Ma S, Schrickel PL, et al. Review detection ofNewcastle disease virus. Front Vet Sci. 2022;9:936251.
8. 8.Alders R. Strategies for vaccination of family poultryagainst Newcastle disease in Africa. In.; 2000.

9. 9.Ashraf A, Shah M. Newcastle disease: present status andfuture challenges for developing countries. Afr J MicrobiolRes. 2014;8(5):411-416.
10. 10. Mshelia I, Atsanda N, Bitrus A, et al. Retrospective studyof selected endemic viral diseases of poultry diagnosed inMaiduguri North-Eastern Nigeria. J Anim Health Prod.2016;4(2):60-64.
11. 11. Charkhkar S, Bashizade M, Sotoudehnejad M, GhodratiM, Bulbuli F, Akbarein H. The evaluation and importance ofNewcastle disease’s economic loss in commercial layerpoultry. J Poult Sci Avian Dis. 2024;2(1):1-4.
12. 12. Mayers J, Mansfield KL, Brown IH. The role of vaccinationin risk mitigation and control of Newcastle disease inpoultry. Vaccine. 2017;35(44):5974-5980.
13. 13. Khorajiya J, Joshi B, Mathakiya R, Prajapati K, Sipai S.Economic impact of genotype-XIII Newcastle disease virusinfection on commercial vaccinated layer farms in India. IntJ Livest Res. 2018;8(5):280-288.
14. 14. Ganar K, Das M, Sinha S, Kumar S. Newcastle diseasevirus: current status and our understanding. Virus Res.2014;184:71-81.
15. 15. Amoia CF, Hakizimana JN, Duggal NK, et al. Geneticdiversity of newcastle disease virus involved in the 2021outbreaks in backyard poultry farms in Tanzania. Vet Sci.2023;10(7):477.
16. 16. Oluwole O, Emikpe B, Olugasa B. Attitude of poultryfarmers towards vaccination against newcastle disease andavian influenza in Ibadan, Nigeria. Sokoto J Vet Sci.2012;10(1):5-12.
17. 17. Okoroafor ON, Animoke PC, Mbegbu EC, et al.Prevalence of Newcastle disease virus in feces of free-rangeturkeys in Enugu, Nigeria. Vet World. 2020;13(7):1288.
18. 18. Ameji O, Sa’idu L, Abdu P. Survey for Newcastle diseaseviruses in poultry and wild birds in Kogi state, Nigeria. SokotoJ Vet Sci. 2016;14(3):47-53.
19. 19. Sadiq M, Mohammed B. The economic impact of someimportant viral diseases affecting the poultry industry inAbuja, Nigeria. Sokoto J Vet Sci. 2017;15(2):7-17.
20. 20. Wen G, Li L, Yu Q, et al. Evaluation of a thermostableNewcastle disease virus strain TS09-C as an in-ovo vaccinefor chickens. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172812.
21. 21. Bello MB, Yusoff K, Ideris A, Hair-Bejo M, Peeters BP,Omar AR. Diagnostic and vaccination approaches for Newcastle disease virus in poultry: The current and emerging perspectives. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018(1):7278459.
22. 22. Hein R, Koopman R, García M, et al. Review of poultryrecombinant vector vaccines. Avian Dis. 2021;65(3):438-452.
23. 23. Fisher H. Newcastle Disease Control in Africa. ACIAR;2014.
24. 24. Adebiyi AI, Gamra O, Jubril A, Oluwayelu DO. Serologicalinvestigation of low pathogenic avian influenza andNewcastle disease virus antibodies in Japanese quails, 30village weavers and one laughing dove in two states ofNigeria. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022;46(1):25.
25. 25. Oyebanji VO, Emikpe BO, Oladele OA, et al.Clinicopathological evaluation of Newcastle disease virusvaccination using gums from Cedrela odorata and Khayasenegalensis as delivery agents in challenged chickens. Int JVet Sci Med. 2017;5(2):135-142.
26. 26. Oyebanji V, Emikpe B, Omolade AO, et al. Evaluation ofimmune response in challenged chickens vaccinated withNewcastle disease vaccine using gums from Cedrela odorataand Khaya senegalensis as delivery agents. J ImmunoassayImmunochem. 2017;38(4):378-388.
27. 27. Emikpe BO, Oyebanji VO, Odeniyi MA, et al. Ex-vivoevaluation of the mucoadhesive properties of Cedrelaodorata and Khaya senegalensis gums with possibleapplications for veterinary vaccine delivery. SpringerPlus.2016;5(1):1289.
28. 28. Ola O, Jarikre TA, Adeniran G, Odeniyi Mi, Emikpe B.Evaluation of oral phytogenic microbeaded NewcastleDisease vaccine delivery in indigenous chicken. J Immunoassay Immunochem. 2021;42(4):359-369.
29. 29. Ola OO, Emikpe BO, Kuntworbe N, et al. Development ofcashew-alginate microbeads and powdered dose forms:prospects for oral vaccine delivery in chickens. J Immunoassay Immunochem. 2024;45(6):549-565.
30. 30. Allan W, Gough R. A standard haemagglutinationinhibition test for Newcastle disease.(1). A comparison ofmacro and micro methods. Published online 1974.
31. 31. Schalm OW, Jain NC, Carroll EJ. Veterinary hematology.Published online 1975.
32. 32. Gross W, Siegel H. Evaluation of theheterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress inchickens. Avian Dis. Published online 1983:972-979.
33. 33. Lentfer T, Pendl H, Gebhardt-Henrich S, Fröhlich E, VonBorell E. H/L ratio as a measurement of stress in laying hens–methodology and reliability. Br Poult Sci. 2015;56(2):157-163.
34. 34. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors inbreast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long‐term follow‐up. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403-410.
35. 35. Weening JJ, D’agati VD, Schwartz MM, et al. Theclassification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupuserythematosus revisited. Kidney Int. 2004;65(2):521-530.
36. 36. Iroh Tam PY, McAllister SC. Vaccine responses andimmunologic characteristics of pediatric patients withDiGeorge syndrome. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2015;54(13):1290-1292.
37. 37. Mahamud SNA, Bello MB, Ideris A, et al. Efficacy ofgenotype-matched Newcastle disease virus vaccineformulated in carboxymethyl sago starch acid hydrogel inchickens vaccinated via different routes. J Vet Sci.2022;23:e25.
38. 38. BALDE A, Omolade OA, Azizat BA, Edmond O, David E,Olawumi IO. Occurrence and Molecular Characterization ofNewcastle Disease Virus Strains in Chicken Flocks in Ibadan,Nigeria: Implications for Vaccine Strain Compatibility. J ApplVet Sci. 2025;10(2):128-136.
39. 39. Musa I, Saidu L, Adamu J, Mbuko I, Kaltungo BY, Abdu P.Outbreaks of Gumboro in growers in Zaria, Nigeria. NigerVet J. Published online 2010. Accessed October 5, 2025.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Outbreaks-of-Gumboro-in-growers-in-Zaria%2C-Nigeria.-Musa-Saidu/f48e78aa60ab05d57e98fff0c791bd0eb98fd163
40. 40. Dimitrov KM, Taylor TL, Marcano VC, et al. NovelRecombinant Newcastle Disease Virus-Based In OvoVaccines Bypass Maternal Immunity to Provide FullProtection from Early Virulent Challenge. Vaccines.2021;9(10):1189.
41. 41. Mohamad A, Zamri-Saad M, Amal MNA, et al. Vaccineefficacy of a newly developed feed-based whole-cellpolyvalent vaccine against vibriosis, streptococcosis andmotile aeromonad septicemia in Asian Seabass, Latescalcarifer. Vaccines. 2021;9(4):368.
42. 42. Ambali H, Nwoha R, Abdu P. Assessment of AntibodyResponse to Newcastle Disease Vaccination in Chickens inSome Commercial Farms in Three Local Government Areasin Lagos State, Nigeria. Am J Exp Agric. 2016;14(1):1-9.
43. 43. Ceccopieri C, Madej JP. Chicken secondary lymphoidtissues—Structure and relevance in immunologicalresearch. Animals. 2024;14(16):2439.
44. 44. Warren AL, Yates RM. Structure, Function, and Disordersof Lymphoid Tissue. Schalms Vet Hematol. 2022:402-413.
45. 45. Saeed M, Babazadeh D, Naveed M, et al. In ovo deliveryof various biological supplements, vaccines and drugs inpoultry: current knowledge. J Sci Food Agric.2019;99(8):3727-3739.