Comparison of antibody titer against the infectious bursal disease virus following the disease with that obtained from live intermediate vaccines using indirect hemagglutination (IHA) test in broiler chicks

Subject Areas : Veterinary Clinical Pathology

عادل Feizi ¹ (Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabirz, Iran)
مهران Alamdari ² (Department of Basic Science (Microbiology), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Urmia, Urmia, Iran)
عبدالله Yadollahi ³ (Graduate of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran)
رضا Azmode ⁴ (Graduate of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran)

Received: 2008-10-29 Accepted : 2009-04-20 Published : 2009-02-19

Keywords: broiler chicken, Gumboro, IHA, Vaccine,

Abstract :

       In this study, antibody titer obtained from the outbreak of the infection bursal disease (IBD) was compared with the titer obtained from live intermediate vaccines by indirect haemagglutination (IHA) test in broiler chicks. A total of 450 one day old Cobb chicks were divided into 3 groups each containing 150 chicks and were kept for 42 days in the same rearing conditions. Chicks in groups 1 and 2 received Bursin-2 and D-78 vaccines respectively via drinking water n days 14 and 21. The rest of the chicks were kept as the controls (group 4) and did not receive any vaccine against the IBD. Serum samples were collected from all birds 2 weeks after the second IBD vaccination. Additional 150 serum samples were also collected from 3 broiler flocks that were affected by IBD and had a history of vaccination by the previously mentioned method, two weeks after the last clinical sings were observed (group 3). Antibody titer of the samples against the IBD virus were determined by the IHA test and the results were evaluated using ANOVA and SPSS software. The mean antibody titer obtained from Bursin-2 and D-78 vaccines were 3.19 and 3.21 respectively which is less than the titer of 6 needed for protection against the disease. The antibody titer in affected flocks was 7.19. comparison of the mean titer of the two vaccines did not show any significant difference but there was significant difference between the titer obtained from each vaccine and that of the effected flock (p<0.05). The results indicated that the titer obtained from the vaccines the manner that they were employed did not reach protective levels and there is the possibility of disease. Also the efficacy of IHA test in determining antibody titer against the IBD virus was demonstrated.  

References:

 

1. Aliev, A.S., Dzhavadov, B. and Leonteva, M.M. (1990): Indirect hemagglutination test for infectious bursal disease of fowls. Vet. Bull., 60: 47-67.


2. Haddad, E., Whitfihl, C., Avakian, A., Ricks, C., Andrews, P., Thomas, J. and Wakenell, P. (1997): Efficacy of a novel infectious bursal disease virus immune complex vaccine in broiler chickens. Avian Dis., 41: 882-889.


3. Hussain, I., Zahoor, M.A., Rasool, M.H., Shahia Mabmood, M., Mansoor, M.K. and Riaz, M.N. (2003): Detection of serum antibody levels against infectious bursal disease (TBD) virus using indirect hemagglutination (IHA) test in commercial broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2(6): 442-445.


4. Jackwood, D.J., Saif, Y.M. and Hughes, J.H. (1982): Characteristics and serologic studies of two serotypes of infectious bursal disease virus in turkeys. Avain Dis., 26: 871-882.


5. Lukert, P.D. and Saif, Y.M. Infectious bursal disease virus. In: Saif, Y.M. (2003): Diseases of Poultry. 11^th ed., Iowa State University Press, pp: 161-179.


6. McFerran, J.B., McNulty, M.S., McKillop, E.R., Conner, T.J., McCracken, R.M., Collins, D.S. and Allan, G.M. (1980): Isolation and serological studies with infectious bursal disease viruses from fowl, turkey and duck: Demonstration of second serotype. Avian Pathol., 9: 395-404.


7.  Nakamura, T., Otaki, Y. and Nunoya, T. (1992): Immunosuppressive effect of a highly virulent infectious bursal disease virus isolated in Japan. Avian Dis., 36: 98 1-896.


8. Rahman, S.U., Ashfaque, M. and Javad, S. (1994): Infectious bursal disease virus antibody titration using indirect hemaggutination test. Pak. Vet. J., 14: 10 1-103.


9. Rosenberger, J.K. and Cloud, S.S. (1986): Isolation and characterization of variant infectious bursal disease viruses [abst]. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 189: 357.


10. Saif, Y.M. (1984): Infectious bursal disease virus types. Proc. 19th Nat. Meet. Poult. Health Condemn. Ocean City, MD, pp: 105-107.


11. Saif, Y.M. (1991): Immunosuppression induced by infectious bursal disease virus. Vet. Immunol. Immunopath., 30: 45-50.