INVESTIGATIONS OF AVIAN LEUKOSIS VIRUS SUBGROUP J AND RETICULOENDOTHELIOSIS VIRUS INFECTIONS IN BROILER BREEDERS IN CHINA | Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| investigations_of_avian_leukosis_virus_subgroup_j.pdf | 410.61 KB |
Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
Investigations of Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup J and Reticuloendotheliosis Virus Infections in Broiler Breeders in China
Cheng, Z.,* Zhang, H., Wang G., Liu, Q., Liu, J., Guo, H. and Zhou E.
College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
ABSTRACT
Avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) and reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) were detected in Arbor Acres (AA) parent broiler breeders between September 2008 and December 2009 in China. Samples from blood (n=1331) and sick chickens (n=152) were obtained from 19 flocks in China for serology, histopathology and PCR analysis. Serologic analysis revealed that the anti-ALV-J, -REV or -ALV-J and REV antibody responses were 10.2%, 42.6% and 6%, respectively. Fifty-seven chickens showed signs of neoplasia based on gross and microscopic examination. The type of tumors included myelocytomas, hemangiomas, lymphosarcomas and fibrosarcoma. Seropositivity of tumor bearing chickens for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 19.3%, 42.1% and 3.5%, respectively. PCR results showed that the positive rate was 43.9%, 14% and 5.3% for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV respectively, in 57 tumor bearing chickens. The data presented in this report demonstrate that ALV-J or REV infections (or co-infections) rates in AA flocks are relative high in China.
Key words: Avian leukosis virus subgroup J, reticuloendotheliosis virus, serology, pathology, PCR.
* Corresponding author: Ziqiang Cheng, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine Shandong Agricultural University, NO 61, Daizong ST, Tai’an City 271018, P.R. China, Tel: +86-538-8245288; Fax: +86-538-8242544 E-mail address: czqsd@126.com
INTRODUCTION Avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) and avian reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) are classified as retroviruses that are the most common causes of avian retroviral infections, causing neoplastic diseases and reproductive complications in poultry (1,2). Furthermore, the transmissibility of the ALV-J subgroup is much higher than other ALV subgroups (3), making control and eradication of this subgroup more difficult. ALV-J was first reported in the United Kingdom (4) and was found to be associated with myeloid leukosis in chickens (5) and infections have had a severe economic impact on the poultry industry. REV is an avian retrovirus that is structurally and antigenically unrelated to the leukosis-sarcoma group of viruses, discovered in 1958 from a turkey with gross leukemic lesions (6). REV infections have been shown to
transform pre-B and pre-T lymphocytes, causing bursal and T-cell lymphomas in chickens and turkeys and infections can result in a variety of non-neoplastic lesions collectively referred to as runting disease syndrome (7,8). Although avian mortality due to ALV-J or REV infections as a result of tumor formation and immunosuppression can result in significant economic losses, an additional economic concern is losses related to REV infection acquired from the use of avian vaccines contaminated with REV since administration of the vaccine can result in an infection. There have also been reports of live poultry vaccines of Marek’s disease virus (MDV) and fowlpox virus (FPV) contaminated with REV (8,9) and ALV-A (10). Davidson (1) reported that co-infection with REV and ALV-J was most common between 1994 and 1997 although no cases were reported
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
34
Ziqiang Cheng
Original Articles
between 1998 and 2006 in Israel where the study was carried out. In an attempt to eradicate retroviruses in broiler breeders we investigated the status of single and concurrent avian leukosis virus subgroup J infections with REV in broiler breeder flocks in China. Sera and sick chickens from nineteen flocks in five regions of China where screened for ALV-J or REV infections or co-infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS
bryos and samples were then incubated for two serial passages of 5-7 days each at 37°C. After incubation, genomic DNA was extracted and analyzed by PCR for ALV-J and REV.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
PCR was used to identify the proviral gp85 and (long terminal repeat) LTR sequences specific to ALV-J and the REV, respectively, from cultured CEF inoculated with liver samples. The primers used for PCR are described in Table 1. The PCRs were performed as described previously (11,12). RESULTS
Sample collection
Between September 2008 and December 2009, nineteen (designated 1-19) AA parent broiler breeder flocks from five different regions in China were tested for infections with either (or both) ALV-J or REV. Flocks 1-3 were located in northern China, flocks 4-6 in southern China, flocks 7-12 in southwestern China, flocks 13-16 in central China and flocks 17-19 were located in eastern China. The age of flocks ranged from 28-450 days. One thousand three hundred and thirty one blood samples from chickens in the 19 flocks were examined by ELISA for the presence of anti-ALV-J or -REV antibodies (IDEXX, Westbrook, ME). One hundred fiftytwo clinically sick chickens from 19 flocks (mean 8/flock) were examined. The chickens that were diagnosed as tumor bearing, based on gross and microscopic examination were used for serology and PCR examination. Liver samples (containing tumor tissues) were tested for ALV-J and REV in cultured chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEF) by PCR. Tissues were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) and examined for microscopic lesions.
Serologic profiles
The humoral anti-ALV-J and -REV profiles in AA broiler breeders from the nineteen flocks examined are shown in Table 2. 89.5% (17/19), 100% (19/19) and 81.3% (16/19) of the chicken flocks examined were positive for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV antibodies, respectively, using an indirect ELISA assay. The average seropositivity for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 10.2%, 42.6% and 6%, respectively. For each site examined, the percentage of seropositive animals ranged from 2-30% for ALV-J, 7-80% for REV, and 1-19% positive for both ALV-J and REV, indicating a significantly high incidence of singularly or co-infected broiler breeder flocks. Anti-ALV-J antibody responses correlated with chicken age i.e., antibody positive rates increased significantly after 154 days (Table 2). In contrast, anti-REV antibody responses were independent of age. Seropositivity of tumor bearing chickens for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 19.3%, 42.1% and 3.5%, respectively (Table 3).
Virus isolation
Liver (containing tumor tissue) samples were inoculated onto CEF cell cultures prepared from specific pathogen free emTable 1: PCR primer sequences.
Target ALV-J gp85 REV-LTR Primer Forward P1 Reverse P2 Forward P3 Reverse P4 Forward P5-nest Reverse P6-nest Sequence
Clinical examination and gross pathology
One hundred fifty-two sick chickens from 19 flocks (mean 8 per flock) were examined. Upon arrival to the laboratory
Product size (bp) 924 293 260
5’-CTGGATCCATGGGAGTTCATCTATTGCAACAACCAG-3’ 5’-TACTGCAGTTAGCGCCTGCTACGGTGGTGACC-3’ 5’-CATACTGGAGCCAATGGTT-3’ 5’-AATGTTGTAGCAAGTACT-3’ 5’-GTAAAGGGAGATGCTA-3’ 5’-TACTACGGATTCAGTCC-3’
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
ALV-J and REV in Broiler Breeders
35
Original Articles
Table 2: Detection of anti-ALV-J and -REV antibodies in broiler breeders of various ages and locations in China.
Location North Flock Flock 1 Flock 2 Flock 3 Flock 4 Flock 5 Flock 6 Flock 7 Flock 8 Flock 9 Flock 10 Flock 11 Flock 12 Flock 13 Flock 14 Flock 15 Flock 16 Flock 17 Flock 18 Flock 19 19 Age (d) 220 400 400 56 70 420 50 90 154 245 320 450 242 260 170 300 28 56 98 No. of samples 59 63 64 57 53 67 53 74 90 91 62 64 61 90 68 120 49 75 71 1331 Anti-ALV-J (+) 7(11.9%) 3(4.8%) 5(7.8%) 0(0%) 3(5.7%) 20(29.9%) 1(1.9%) 2(2.7%) 2(2.2%) 6(6.6%) 16(25.8%) 11(17.2%) 13(21.3%) 14(15.6%) 8(11.8%) 15(12.5%) 0(0%) 5(6.7%) 5(7.0%) 136(10.2%) Anti-REV (+) 24(40.7%) 20(31.8%) 15(23.4%) 4(7.0%) 8(15.1%) 14(20.9%) 10(18.9%) 28(37.8%) 15(16.7%) 73(80.2%) 12(19.4%) 48(75.0%) 32(52.5%) 61(67.8%) 24(35.3%) 48(40.0%) 33(67.4%) 46(61.3%) 52(73.2%) 567(42.6%) Co-infected 4(6.8%) 3(4.8%) 5(7.8%) 0(0%) 1(1.9%) 11(16.4%) 0(0%) 2(2.7%) 2(2.2%) 5(5.5%) 12(19.4%) 7(10.9%) 7(11.5%) 8(8.9%) 5(7.4%) 7(5.8%) 0(0%) 1(1.3%) 2(2.8%) 80(6.0%)
South
South- west
Central
East
Total
some chickens were inactive, reluctant to stand and had ruffled feathers. All birds were bled, serum collected and then euthanized for gross pathology observation. All birds showed no or minimal ovarian development, indicating that they were not reproductively viable. Twenty-three birds showed signs of gross neoplasia at necropsy. The most common lesion sites were the liver (n=23) and spleen (n = 23). Tumors were also found in the heart (n = 2), kidneys (n = 4), ovaries (n = 4), the proventriculus (n = 1) and intestine (n = 1). No
gross lesions were seen in nerve tissues, brains, eyes, or bursas of Fabricius.
Histopathology and PCR
Histological examination confirmed that thirty four additional chickens had neoplasia and/or hyperplasia in various visceral organs, resulting in a total of fifty seven chickens with neoplasia and/or hyperplasia. Different types of tumors or hyperplasia were found in the 57 chickens examined (Table
Table 3: Comparison between the antibody response and PCR analysis in tumor bearing chickens.
Samples/ flock 19/flock1 14/flock6 13/flock11 11/flock19 57 Tumor Type and fN
aML:14; bHG:6
ELISA (%) ALV-J 5 3 2 1 11(19.3%) REV 9 7 5 3 24(42.1%) ALV-J+REV 0 1 0 1 2(3.5%) ALV-J 11 4 4 3 25(43.9%)
PCR REV 3 1 3 1 8(14%) ALV-J+REV 1 1 1 0 3(5.3%)
ML:8;HG:1; dFS:5 ML:1;eLL:10
ML:6; cECH:10
aML, Myelocytomatosis; bHG, Heamangioma; cECH: fN, Number.
endothelial cell hyperplasia; dFS, Fibrosacoma; eLL, Lymphosarcoma;
36
Ziqiang Cheng
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
Original Articles
Figure 1. Histopathology. Myelocytoma cells in liver (1000X) (A), hemangioma with infiltration of myeloid cells (100X) (B); lymphosarcoma (400X) (C); Liver sinusoid endothelial cells hyperplasia (1000X) (D).
3): myelocytomas (29/57) (Fig. 1A), hemangiomas (7/57) (Figure 1B), lymphosarcomas (10/57) (Fig. 1C), sinusoids endothelial cell hyperplasia (10/57) (Fig. 1D) and fibrosarcomas (5/57). Thus, myelocytomas were common tumor in AA parent Broiler Breeders. Two kinds of tumors or hyperplasia were found in same chicken, including myelocytomas and heamangiomas, myelocytomas and sinusoids endothelial cell hyperplasia, myelocytomas and fibrosarcomas. PCR results showed that the positive rate was 43.9%, 14% and 5.3% for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV, respectively (Table 3). DISCUSSION Avian retroviral infections produce symptoms that set them apart from other avian viral diseases, such as immunosuppression and growth retardation. These viruses can be transmitted vertically, thereby facilitating cross-generational contamination (13). To assess the ALV-J and REV infection rates and tumor type in Broiler Breeders, we investigated blood samples and clinically sick chickens. The data presented in this report demonstrate that ALV-J and REV infections in AA parent broiler breeder flocks in China were quite prevalent. Seropositivity of anti-ALV-J antibody in broiler breeders was 10.2% and the anti-REV antibody response was 42.6% which were similar to those reported by Cheng (12%) (14) and Qin (39.6%) (15). The dual infection rates in our study were 6%. In contrast to our study, Davidson’s results showed that there were no singularly or co-infected
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
chickens in a study carried out in Israel (1). A high rate of ALV-J and REV co-infection was found in normal flocks (6%) and tumor bearing chickens populations (5.3%). The co-infection rates in chickens were higher than reported previously (1). Comparing the results of ELISA and PCR, we found that PCR positivity is much higher compared with ALV-J seropositivity (19.3%), and is much lower compared with REV seropositivity (42.1%), but is similar with dual infection rate in tumor bearing chickens (5.3% and 3.5%). The data suggests that there are birds infected with ALV-J who are immunologically tolerant and probably were infected in ovo or at a very young age but with REV the opposite is true, that is, most birds were likely infected when immunocompetent, resulting in greater seropositivity. This report demonstrated that ALV-J or REV infections (or co-infections) in AA flocks are quite common in China. Due to the severe economic impact that these infections can have on the poultry industry, defined methods for screening needs to be put into practice. REFERENCES
1. Davidson, I.: Avian oncogenic viruses: the correlation between clinical signs and molecular virus identification, knowledge acquired from the examination of over 1000 flocks. www.isrvma.org, 2007. 2. Witter, R.L. and Fadly, A.M. Reticuloendotheliosis.: In: Y.M. Saif, H.J. Barnes, A.M. Fadly, J.R. Glisson, L.R. McDougald, and D.E. Swayne (eds.), Diseases of Poultry 11th ed. pp. 517-535. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa. 2003.
ALV-J and REV in Broiler Breeders
37
Original Articles
3. Witter, R.I., Bacon, L.D., Hunt, H.D., Silva, R.F. and Fadly, A.M.: Avian leukosis virus subgroup J infection profiles in broiler breeder chickens: association with virus transmission to progeny. Avian Dis. 44: 913-931, 2000. 4. Payne, L.N, Brown, S.R., Bumstead, N. and Howes, K.: A novel subgroup of exogenous avian leukosis virus in chickens. J. Gen. Virol. 72: 801-807, 1991. 5. Payne, L.N., Gillespie, A.M. and Howes, K.: Myeloid leukaemogenicity and transmission of the HPRS-103 strain of avian leukosis virus. Leukemia. 6: 1167-76 1992. 6. Theilen, G.H., Zeigel, R.F. and Twiehaus, M.J.: Biological studies with RE virus (strain T) that induces reticuloendotheliosis in turkeys, chickens and Japanese quail. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 37: 731-743, 1966. 7. Witter, R.L. and Johnson, D.C.: Epidemiology of reticulendotheliosis virus in Broiler breeder flocks. Avian Dis. 29: 1140-1154, 1985. 8. Witter, R.L, Li, D. and Kung, H.J.: Retroviral insertional mutagenesis of a herpesvirus: A Marek’s disease virus mutant attenuated for oncogenicity but not for immunosuppression or in vivo replication. Avian Dis. 41: 407-421, 1997. 9. Davidson, I. and Borenshtain, R.: In vivo event of retroviral long terminal repeat integration into Marek’s disease virus in commercial poultry: detection of chimerical molecules as a marker. Avian Dis. 45: 102-121, 2001. 10. Fadly, A.M. and Witter, R.L.: Comparative evaluation of in vitro and in vivo assays for the detection of reticuloendotheliosis virus as a contaminant in a live virus vaccine of poultry. Avian Dis. 41: 695-701, 1997. 11. Moore, K.M., Davis, J.R., Sato, T. and Yasuda, A.: Reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) long terminal repeats incorporated in the genomes of commercial fowl poxvirus vaccines
and pigeon poxviruses without indication of the presence of infectious REV. Avian Dis. 44: 827-841, 2000. 12. Venugopal, K., Smith, L.M., Howes, K. and Payne, L.N.: Antigenic variants of J subgroup avian leukosis virus: sequence analysis reveals multiple changes in the env gene. J. Gen. Virol. 79: 757-766, 1998. 13. Payne, L.N.: Retrovirus-induced disease in poultry. Poultry Sci. 77: 1204-1212, 1998. 14. Cheng, Z.Q., Zhao, X.L., Hao, Y.Q., Guo, J.Q., Gao, W, Gu, Y.F., Yang, Y.Y., Zhang, E.Q. and Zhao, Z.H.: Investigation of avian myelocytomatosis by ELISA. China Poultry 6: 9-10, 2002. 15. Qin, Z.M. and Zhao, J.X.: New understanding of REV. China Poultry Industry 20:16, 2003.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation (No.30871856, 31072096), Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation (No. Y2007D46, 2010GNC10943). Abbreviations: ALV-J = subgroup J avian leukosis virus; ALV-A= subgroup A avian leukosis virus; REV = reticuloendotheliosis virus; AA = Arbor Acres; HE = hematoxylin and eosin; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; CEF =chicken embryo fibroblasts; MDV =Marek’s disease virus ; FPV= fowlpox virus; ML= myelocytomatosis; HG=heamangioma; ECH=endothelial cell hyperplasia; FS=fibrosacoma; LL=lymphosarcoma; LTR=long terminal repeat.
38
Ziqiang Cheng
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
Investigations of Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup J and Reticuloendotheliosis Virus Infections in Broiler Breeders in China
Cheng, Z.,* Zhang, H., Wang G., Liu, Q., Liu, J., Guo, H. and Zhou E.
College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
ABSTRACT
Avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) and reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) were detected in Arbor Acres (AA) parent broiler breeders between September 2008 and December 2009 in China. Samples from blood (n=1331) and sick chickens (n=152) were obtained from 19 flocks in China for serology, histopathology and PCR analysis. Serologic analysis revealed that the anti-ALV-J, -REV or -ALV-J and REV antibody responses were 10.2%, 42.6% and 6%, respectively. Fifty-seven chickens showed signs of neoplasia based on gross and microscopic examination. The type of tumors included myelocytomas, hemangiomas, lymphosarcomas and fibrosarcoma. Seropositivity of tumor bearing chickens for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 19.3%, 42.1% and 3.5%, respectively. PCR results showed that the positive rate was 43.9%, 14% and 5.3% for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV respectively, in 57 tumor bearing chickens. The data presented in this report demonstrate that ALV-J or REV infections (or co-infections) rates in AA flocks are relative high in China.
Key words: Avian leukosis virus subgroup J, reticuloendotheliosis virus, serology, pathology, PCR.
* Corresponding author: Ziqiang Cheng, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine Shandong Agricultural University, NO 61, Daizong ST, Tai’an City 271018, P.R. China, Tel: +86-538-8245288; Fax: +86-538-8242544 E-mail address: czqsd@126.com
INTRODUCTION Avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) and avian reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) are classified as retroviruses that are the most common causes of avian retroviral infections, causing neoplastic diseases and reproductive complications in poultry (1,2). Furthermore, the transmissibility of the ALV-J subgroup is much higher than other ALV subgroups (3), making control and eradication of this subgroup more difficult. ALV-J was first reported in the United Kingdom (4) and was found to be associated with myeloid leukosis in chickens (5) and infections have had a severe economic impact on the poultry industry. REV is an avian retrovirus that is structurally and antigenically unrelated to the leukosis-sarcoma group of viruses, discovered in 1958 from a turkey with gross leukemic lesions (6). REV infections have been shown to
transform pre-B and pre-T lymphocytes, causing bursal and T-cell lymphomas in chickens and turkeys and infections can result in a variety of non-neoplastic lesions collectively referred to as runting disease syndrome (7,8). Although avian mortality due to ALV-J or REV infections as a result of tumor formation and immunosuppression can result in significant economic losses, an additional economic concern is losses related to REV infection acquired from the use of avian vaccines contaminated with REV since administration of the vaccine can result in an infection. There have also been reports of live poultry vaccines of Marek’s disease virus (MDV) and fowlpox virus (FPV) contaminated with REV (8,9) and ALV-A (10). Davidson (1) reported that co-infection with REV and ALV-J was most common between 1994 and 1997 although no cases were reported
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
34
Ziqiang Cheng
Original Articles
between 1998 and 2006 in Israel where the study was carried out. In an attempt to eradicate retroviruses in broiler breeders we investigated the status of single and concurrent avian leukosis virus subgroup J infections with REV in broiler breeder flocks in China. Sera and sick chickens from nineteen flocks in five regions of China where screened for ALV-J or REV infections or co-infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS
bryos and samples were then incubated for two serial passages of 5-7 days each at 37°C. After incubation, genomic DNA was extracted and analyzed by PCR for ALV-J and REV.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
PCR was used to identify the proviral gp85 and (long terminal repeat) LTR sequences specific to ALV-J and the REV, respectively, from cultured CEF inoculated with liver samples. The primers used for PCR are described in Table 1. The PCRs were performed as described previously (11,12). RESULTS
Sample collection
Between September 2008 and December 2009, nineteen (designated 1-19) AA parent broiler breeder flocks from five different regions in China were tested for infections with either (or both) ALV-J or REV. Flocks 1-3 were located in northern China, flocks 4-6 in southern China, flocks 7-12 in southwestern China, flocks 13-16 in central China and flocks 17-19 were located in eastern China. The age of flocks ranged from 28-450 days. One thousand three hundred and thirty one blood samples from chickens in the 19 flocks were examined by ELISA for the presence of anti-ALV-J or -REV antibodies (IDEXX, Westbrook, ME). One hundred fiftytwo clinically sick chickens from 19 flocks (mean 8/flock) were examined. The chickens that were diagnosed as tumor bearing, based on gross and microscopic examination were used for serology and PCR examination. Liver samples (containing tumor tissues) were tested for ALV-J and REV in cultured chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEF) by PCR. Tissues were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) and examined for microscopic lesions.
Serologic profiles
The humoral anti-ALV-J and -REV profiles in AA broiler breeders from the nineteen flocks examined are shown in Table 2. 89.5% (17/19), 100% (19/19) and 81.3% (16/19) of the chicken flocks examined were positive for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV antibodies, respectively, using an indirect ELISA assay. The average seropositivity for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 10.2%, 42.6% and 6%, respectively. For each site examined, the percentage of seropositive animals ranged from 2-30% for ALV-J, 7-80% for REV, and 1-19% positive for both ALV-J and REV, indicating a significantly high incidence of singularly or co-infected broiler breeder flocks. Anti-ALV-J antibody responses correlated with chicken age i.e., antibody positive rates increased significantly after 154 days (Table 2). In contrast, anti-REV antibody responses were independent of age. Seropositivity of tumor bearing chickens for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV was 19.3%, 42.1% and 3.5%, respectively (Table 3).
Virus isolation
Liver (containing tumor tissue) samples were inoculated onto CEF cell cultures prepared from specific pathogen free emTable 1: PCR primer sequences.
Target ALV-J gp85 REV-LTR Primer Forward P1 Reverse P2 Forward P3 Reverse P4 Forward P5-nest Reverse P6-nest Sequence
Clinical examination and gross pathology
One hundred fifty-two sick chickens from 19 flocks (mean 8 per flock) were examined. Upon arrival to the laboratory
Product size (bp) 924 293 260
5’-CTGGATCCATGGGAGTTCATCTATTGCAACAACCAG-3’ 5’-TACTGCAGTTAGCGCCTGCTACGGTGGTGACC-3’ 5’-CATACTGGAGCCAATGGTT-3’ 5’-AATGTTGTAGCAAGTACT-3’ 5’-GTAAAGGGAGATGCTA-3’ 5’-TACTACGGATTCAGTCC-3’
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
ALV-J and REV in Broiler Breeders
35
Original Articles
Table 2: Detection of anti-ALV-J and -REV antibodies in broiler breeders of various ages and locations in China.
Location North Flock Flock 1 Flock 2 Flock 3 Flock 4 Flock 5 Flock 6 Flock 7 Flock 8 Flock 9 Flock 10 Flock 11 Flock 12 Flock 13 Flock 14 Flock 15 Flock 16 Flock 17 Flock 18 Flock 19 19 Age (d) 220 400 400 56 70 420 50 90 154 245 320 450 242 260 170 300 28 56 98 No. of samples 59 63 64 57 53 67 53 74 90 91 62 64 61 90 68 120 49 75 71 1331 Anti-ALV-J (+) 7(11.9%) 3(4.8%) 5(7.8%) 0(0%) 3(5.7%) 20(29.9%) 1(1.9%) 2(2.7%) 2(2.2%) 6(6.6%) 16(25.8%) 11(17.2%) 13(21.3%) 14(15.6%) 8(11.8%) 15(12.5%) 0(0%) 5(6.7%) 5(7.0%) 136(10.2%) Anti-REV (+) 24(40.7%) 20(31.8%) 15(23.4%) 4(7.0%) 8(15.1%) 14(20.9%) 10(18.9%) 28(37.8%) 15(16.7%) 73(80.2%) 12(19.4%) 48(75.0%) 32(52.5%) 61(67.8%) 24(35.3%) 48(40.0%) 33(67.4%) 46(61.3%) 52(73.2%) 567(42.6%) Co-infected 4(6.8%) 3(4.8%) 5(7.8%) 0(0%) 1(1.9%) 11(16.4%) 0(0%) 2(2.7%) 2(2.2%) 5(5.5%) 12(19.4%) 7(10.9%) 7(11.5%) 8(8.9%) 5(7.4%) 7(5.8%) 0(0%) 1(1.3%) 2(2.8%) 80(6.0%)
South
South- west
Central
East
Total
some chickens were inactive, reluctant to stand and had ruffled feathers. All birds were bled, serum collected and then euthanized for gross pathology observation. All birds showed no or minimal ovarian development, indicating that they were not reproductively viable. Twenty-three birds showed signs of gross neoplasia at necropsy. The most common lesion sites were the liver (n=23) and spleen (n = 23). Tumors were also found in the heart (n = 2), kidneys (n = 4), ovaries (n = 4), the proventriculus (n = 1) and intestine (n = 1). No
gross lesions were seen in nerve tissues, brains, eyes, or bursas of Fabricius.
Histopathology and PCR
Histological examination confirmed that thirty four additional chickens had neoplasia and/or hyperplasia in various visceral organs, resulting in a total of fifty seven chickens with neoplasia and/or hyperplasia. Different types of tumors or hyperplasia were found in the 57 chickens examined (Table
Table 3: Comparison between the antibody response and PCR analysis in tumor bearing chickens.
Samples/ flock 19/flock1 14/flock6 13/flock11 11/flock19 57 Tumor Type and fN
aML:14; bHG:6
ELISA (%) ALV-J 5 3 2 1 11(19.3%) REV 9 7 5 3 24(42.1%) ALV-J+REV 0 1 0 1 2(3.5%) ALV-J 11 4 4 3 25(43.9%)
PCR REV 3 1 3 1 8(14%) ALV-J+REV 1 1 1 0 3(5.3%)
ML:8;HG:1; dFS:5 ML:1;eLL:10
ML:6; cECH:10
aML, Myelocytomatosis; bHG, Heamangioma; cECH: fN, Number.
endothelial cell hyperplasia; dFS, Fibrosacoma; eLL, Lymphosarcoma;
36
Ziqiang Cheng
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
Original Articles
Figure 1. Histopathology. Myelocytoma cells in liver (1000X) (A), hemangioma with infiltration of myeloid cells (100X) (B); lymphosarcoma (400X) (C); Liver sinusoid endothelial cells hyperplasia (1000X) (D).
3): myelocytomas (29/57) (Fig. 1A), hemangiomas (7/57) (Figure 1B), lymphosarcomas (10/57) (Fig. 1C), sinusoids endothelial cell hyperplasia (10/57) (Fig. 1D) and fibrosarcomas (5/57). Thus, myelocytomas were common tumor in AA parent Broiler Breeders. Two kinds of tumors or hyperplasia were found in same chicken, including myelocytomas and heamangiomas, myelocytomas and sinusoids endothelial cell hyperplasia, myelocytomas and fibrosarcomas. PCR results showed that the positive rate was 43.9%, 14% and 5.3% for ALV-J, REV or ALV-J and REV, respectively (Table 3). DISCUSSION Avian retroviral infections produce symptoms that set them apart from other avian viral diseases, such as immunosuppression and growth retardation. These viruses can be transmitted vertically, thereby facilitating cross-generational contamination (13). To assess the ALV-J and REV infection rates and tumor type in Broiler Breeders, we investigated blood samples and clinically sick chickens. The data presented in this report demonstrate that ALV-J and REV infections in AA parent broiler breeder flocks in China were quite prevalent. Seropositivity of anti-ALV-J antibody in broiler breeders was 10.2% and the anti-REV antibody response was 42.6% which were similar to those reported by Cheng (12%) (14) and Qin (39.6%) (15). The dual infection rates in our study were 6%. In contrast to our study, Davidson’s results showed that there were no singularly or co-infected
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
chickens in a study carried out in Israel (1). A high rate of ALV-J and REV co-infection was found in normal flocks (6%) and tumor bearing chickens populations (5.3%). The co-infection rates in chickens were higher than reported previously (1). Comparing the results of ELISA and PCR, we found that PCR positivity is much higher compared with ALV-J seropositivity (19.3%), and is much lower compared with REV seropositivity (42.1%), but is similar with dual infection rate in tumor bearing chickens (5.3% and 3.5%). The data suggests that there are birds infected with ALV-J who are immunologically tolerant and probably were infected in ovo or at a very young age but with REV the opposite is true, that is, most birds were likely infected when immunocompetent, resulting in greater seropositivity. This report demonstrated that ALV-J or REV infections (or co-infections) in AA flocks are quite common in China. Due to the severe economic impact that these infections can have on the poultry industry, defined methods for screening needs to be put into practice. REFERENCES
1. Davidson, I.: Avian oncogenic viruses: the correlation between clinical signs and molecular virus identification, knowledge acquired from the examination of over 1000 flocks. www.isrvma.org, 2007. 2. Witter, R.L. and Fadly, A.M. Reticuloendotheliosis.: In: Y.M. Saif, H.J. Barnes, A.M. Fadly, J.R. Glisson, L.R. McDougald, and D.E. Swayne (eds.), Diseases of Poultry 11th ed. pp. 517-535. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa. 2003.
ALV-J and REV in Broiler Breeders
37
Original Articles
3. Witter, R.I., Bacon, L.D., Hunt, H.D., Silva, R.F. and Fadly, A.M.: Avian leukosis virus subgroup J infection profiles in broiler breeder chickens: association with virus transmission to progeny. Avian Dis. 44: 913-931, 2000. 4. Payne, L.N, Brown, S.R., Bumstead, N. and Howes, K.: A novel subgroup of exogenous avian leukosis virus in chickens. J. Gen. Virol. 72: 801-807, 1991. 5. Payne, L.N., Gillespie, A.M. and Howes, K.: Myeloid leukaemogenicity and transmission of the HPRS-103 strain of avian leukosis virus. Leukemia. 6: 1167-76 1992. 6. Theilen, G.H., Zeigel, R.F. and Twiehaus, M.J.: Biological studies with RE virus (strain T) that induces reticuloendotheliosis in turkeys, chickens and Japanese quail. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 37: 731-743, 1966. 7. Witter, R.L. and Johnson, D.C.: Epidemiology of reticulendotheliosis virus in Broiler breeder flocks. Avian Dis. 29: 1140-1154, 1985. 8. Witter, R.L, Li, D. and Kung, H.J.: Retroviral insertional mutagenesis of a herpesvirus: A Marek’s disease virus mutant attenuated for oncogenicity but not for immunosuppression or in vivo replication. Avian Dis. 41: 407-421, 1997. 9. Davidson, I. and Borenshtain, R.: In vivo event of retroviral long terminal repeat integration into Marek’s disease virus in commercial poultry: detection of chimerical molecules as a marker. Avian Dis. 45: 102-121, 2001. 10. Fadly, A.M. and Witter, R.L.: Comparative evaluation of in vitro and in vivo assays for the detection of reticuloendotheliosis virus as a contaminant in a live virus vaccine of poultry. Avian Dis. 41: 695-701, 1997. 11. Moore, K.M., Davis, J.R., Sato, T. and Yasuda, A.: Reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) long terminal repeats incorporated in the genomes of commercial fowl poxvirus vaccines
and pigeon poxviruses without indication of the presence of infectious REV. Avian Dis. 44: 827-841, 2000. 12. Venugopal, K., Smith, L.M., Howes, K. and Payne, L.N.: Antigenic variants of J subgroup avian leukosis virus: sequence analysis reveals multiple changes in the env gene. J. Gen. Virol. 79: 757-766, 1998. 13. Payne, L.N.: Retrovirus-induced disease in poultry. Poultry Sci. 77: 1204-1212, 1998. 14. Cheng, Z.Q., Zhao, X.L., Hao, Y.Q., Guo, J.Q., Gao, W, Gu, Y.F., Yang, Y.Y., Zhang, E.Q. and Zhao, Z.H.: Investigation of avian myelocytomatosis by ELISA. China Poultry 6: 9-10, 2002. 15. Qin, Z.M. and Zhao, J.X.: New understanding of REV. China Poultry Industry 20:16, 2003.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation (No.30871856, 31072096), Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation (No. Y2007D46, 2010GNC10943). Abbreviations: ALV-J = subgroup J avian leukosis virus; ALV-A= subgroup A avian leukosis virus; REV = reticuloendotheliosis virus; AA = Arbor Acres; HE = hematoxylin and eosin; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; CEF =chicken embryo fibroblasts; MDV =Marek’s disease virus ; FPV= fowlpox virus; ML= myelocytomatosis; HG=heamangioma; ECH=endothelial cell hyperplasia; FS=fibrosacoma; LL=lymphosarcoma; LTR=long terminal repeat.
38
Ziqiang Cheng
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine Vol. 66 (2) June 2011
Journal:
