medigraphic.com

2007, Número 3

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Vet Mex 2007; 38 (3)


Efecto de una vacuna anticoccidial sobre parámetros fi siológicos e inmunológicos de pollos de engorda

Juárez EMA, Nava MGM, Merino GR

Idioma: Español/Inglés
Referencias bibliográficas: 50
Paginas: 303-318
Archivo PDF: 323.84 Kb.


RESUMEN

Se evaluó el efecto de una vacuna anticoccidial en pollos de engorda desafiados al día 21 de edad con 6.0 x 104 E. acervulina; 5.0 x 103 E. maxima y 4.0 x 104 E. tenella ooquistes esporulados/ave. De manera aleatoria se asignaron 20 aves de un día de edad a cada uno de cuatro grupos: 1) testigo no vacunado, no desafi ado (NVND); 2) testigo no vacunado, desafi ado (NVD); 3) vacunado desafi ado (VD); y 4) vacunado no desafi ado (VND). Las aves se pesaron semanalmente. A los siete días posdesafío (PD) se observó la ganancia porcentual de peso (GPP), el pH intestinal, el peso total del intestino (PTI), la concentración intestinal de IgA (CIIgA), el grado de severidad de las lesiones (GSL), la eliminación de ooquistes (EOH) y el porcentaje de la especie específi ca de coccidia (PEEC) en heces. A los días 14 y 26 se midió la velocidad de tránsito gástrico (VTG). Al día 21, el peso del grupo VD (544.8 ± 105) y VND (504.9 ± 88) fueron menores (P ‹ 0.05) al grupo NVND (615.6 ± 100). Al día 28, el grupo NVND fue el más pesado (923.3 ± 126) y con mayor GPP (49.97%). El grupo NVD obtuvo la menor GPP (24.60%) y al día 26 la menor VTG (212.4 ± 31), diferente (P < 0.05) al grupo VND con 43.81% de GPP y 158.4 ± 52 de VTG. Los grupos no fueron diferentes en pH y PTI. El grupo NVND presentó la menor CIIgA en sacos ciegos. El grupo NVD mostró el mayor GSL, el NVND y el VND, el menor; el grupo VD presentó mayor GSL de E. maxima y E. tenella que los grupos NVND y VND. Al día 28, el grupo NVD mostró la mayor EOH, el VD tuvo mayor EOH que los grupos NVND y VND. A los siete días PD, el PEEC para E. acervulina del grupo VD fue menor al grupo NVND y VND, aun cuando el PEEC para E. maxima y E. tenella se incrementó. Con la fi nalidad de entender las diferencias antigénicas, debe efectuarse la caracterización molecular de las cepas de campo y compararse con las vacunas comerciales


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Allen PC, Fetterer RH. Recent advances in biology and immunobiology of Eimeria species and in diagnosis and control of infection with these coccidian parasites of poultry. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:58-65.

  2. Chapman HD. Evaluation of the effi cacy of anticoccidial drugs against Eimeria species in the fowl. Inter J Parasitol 1998;28:1141-1144

  3. Williams RB. Epidemiological aspects of the use of live anticoccidial vaccines for chickens. Inter J Parasitol 1998;28:1089-1098.

  4. Danforth HD. Use of live oocyst vaccines in the control of avian coccidiosis: experimental studies and fi eld trials. Int J Parasitol 1998;28:1099-1109.

  5. Williams RB. Anticoccidial vaccines for broiler chickens: pathways to success. Avian Pathol 2002;31:317-353.

  6. Dalloul RA, Lillehoj HS. Recent advances in immunomodulation and vaccination strategies against coccidiosis. Avian Dis 2005;49:1-8.

  7. Williams RB, Johnson JD, Andrews SJ. Anticoccidial vaccination of broiler chickens in various management programmes: relationship between oocyst accumulation in litter and the development of protective immunity. Vet Res Commun 2000;24:309-325.

  8. Holková J, Bedrník P. Livacox®T: Ten-year experience in broiler fattening. Praxis Vet 2002;50:213-220.

  9. Williams RB, Carlyle WWH, Bond DR, Brown IAG. The efficacy and economic benefi ts of Paracox®, a live attenuated anticoccidial vaccine, in commercial trials with standard broiler chickens in the United Kingdom. Inter J Parasitol 1999;29:341-355.

  10. Williams RB. Quantifi cation of crowding effect during infection with the seven Eimeria species of the domesticated fowls: its importance for the experimental designs and the production of oocyst stocks. Inter J Parasitol 2001;31:1056-1069.

  11. Voeten AC, Braunius WW, Orthel FW, Van Rijel MA. Influence of coccidiosis on growth rate and feed conversion in broilers after experimental infections with Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria maxima. Vet Q 1988;10:256-264.

  12. Danforth HD, Lee EH, Martin A, Dekich M. Evaluation of a gel-immunization technique used with two different Immucox vaccine formulations in battery and fl oor-pen trials with broiler chickens. Parasitol Res 1997;83:445-451.

  13. Fitz-Coy SH. Antigenic variation among strains of Eimeria maxima and E. tenella of the chicken. Avian Dis 1992;36:40-43.

  14. Martin AG, Danforth HD, Barta JR, Fernando MA. Analysis of immunological cross-protection and sensitivities to anticoccidial drugs among fi ve geographical and temporal strains of E. maxima. Inter J Parasitol 1997;27:527-533.

  15. Barta JR, Coles BA, Schito ML, Fernando MA, Martin A, Danforth HD. Analysis of infraspecifi c variation among fi ve strains of Eimeria maxima from North America. Inter J for Parasitol 1998;28:485-492.

  16. Smith AL, Hesketh P, Archer A, Shirley MW. Antigenic diversity in Eimeria maxima and the infl uence of host genetics and immunization schedule on cross-protective immunity. Infect Immun 2002;70:2472-2479.

  17. Beattie SE, Fernando MA, Barta JR. A comparison of sporozoite transport after homologous and heterologous challenge in chickens immunized with the Guelph strain or the Florida strain of Eimeria maxima. Parasitol Res 2001;87:116-121.

  18. Allen PC, Jenkins MC, Miska KB. Cross protection studies with Eimeria maxima strains. Parasitol Res 2005;97:179-185.

  19. Schnitzler B E, Shirley MW. Immunological aspects of infections with Eimeria maxima: a short review. Avian Pathol 1999;28:537-543.

  20. Williams RB, Catchpole J. A new protocol for a challenge test to asses the effi cacy of live anticoccidial vaccines for chickens. Vaccine 2000;18:1178-1185.

  21. Chapman HD, Cherry TE, Danforth HD, Richards G, Shirley MW, Williams RB. Sustainable coccidiosis control in poultry production: the role of live vaccines. Inter J Parasitol 2002;32:617-629.

  22. Allen PC, Danforth HD, Vinyard BL. Development of a protective index to rank effectiveness of multiple treatments within an experiment: application to a crossprotection study of several strains of Eimeria maxima and a live vaccine. Avian Dis 2004;48:370-375.

  23. Chapman HD, Roberts B, Shirley MW, Williams RB. Guidelines for evaluating the effi cacy and safety of live anticoccidial vaccines, and obtaining approval for their use in chickens and turkeys. Avian Pathol 2005;34:279-290.

  24. Bedrník P, Yvoré P, Hiepe T, Mielke D, Drössigk U. Guidelines for evaluating the effi cacy and safety in chickens of live vaccines against coccidiosis and recommendations for registration. In: Eckert J, Braun R, Shirley MW, Codert P, editors. Cost 89/820 Biotechnology: guidelines on techniques in coccidiosis research. Luxembourg: European Commission, 1995:190-201.

  25. Andrews EJ, Bennet BT, Derrell CJ, Houpt KA, Pascoe PJ, Robinson GW et al. Report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;202:229-249.

  26. Zigterman GJW, Van de Ven W, Van Geffen C, Loeffen AHC, Panhuijzen JHM, Rijke EO et al. Detection of mucosal immune responses in chickens after immunization or infection. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 1993;36:281-291.

  27. Johnson J, Reid WM. Anticoccidial drugs: lesion scoring techniques in battery and fl oor-pen experiments with chickens. Exp Parasitol 1970;28:30-36.

  28. Long PL, Millard BJ, Joyner LP, Norton CC. A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Vet Lat 1976;6:200-217.

  29. Juarez EMA, Cabriales JJJ, Petrone GVM, Tellez IG. Evaluation of Eimeria tenella oocyst total count carried out with both the McMaster camera and the Neubauer haemocytometer from faeces or caecal tissue samples. Vet Mex 2002;33:73-79.

  30. Joyner LP, Long PL. The specifi c characters of the Eimeria with special reference to the coccidia of the fowl. Avian Pathol 1974;3:145-157.

  31. Gill JL. Design and analysis of experiments in the animal and sciences. Ames (Io): The Iowa State University Press, 1978.

  32. Juarez MA, Davila V, Martinez F, Gonzalez G, Rios F, Avila E. Performance improvement with Nobilis Cox ATM® and Sacox® in broilers challenged with Mexican coccidial isolates. Abstracts from 24th Annual Meeting (SPSS); 2003 January 20-21; Atlanta (Georgia) U.S.A. Atlanta (Georgia): The Southern Poultry Science Society, 2003:54.

  33. Zorman-Rojs O, Rataj AV, Krapež U, Dovč A, Čajavec S. Evaluation of safety of anticoccidial vaccine Livacox®T in broiler chickens in experimental condition. Praxis Vet 2002;50:231-238.

  34. Terzič K, Kračun F, Čajavec S, Džakula N. Monitoring of the effi cacy of the vaccine Livacox®T during two years of use in croatia. Praxis Vet 2004;52:55-66.

  35. Goletič T, Gagič A, Grbič E, Kustura A, Rešidbegovič E. Evaluation of production and parasitological parameters in parents birds Cobb provenance after vaccination with Livacox®Q vaccination. Praxis Vet 2004;52:67-76.

  36. Bradley RE, Radhakrishnan CV. Coccidiosis in chickens: obligate relationship between Eimeria tenella and certain species of ceca microfl ora in the pathogenesis of the disease. Avian Dis 1973;17: 461-476

  37. Qin ZR, Fukata T, Baba E, Arakawa A. Effect of lactose and Lactobacillus acidophilus on the colonization of Salmonella enteritidis in chicks concurrently infected with Eimeria tenella. Avian Dis 1995;39:548-553.

  38. Girard F, Fort G, Yvoré P, Quéré P. Kinetics of specifi c immunoglobulin A, M and G production in the duodenal and caecal mucosa of chicken infected with Eimeria acervulina or Eimeria tenella. Int J Parasitol 1997;27:803-809.

  39. Denbow MD. Gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. In: Whittow GC, editor. Sturkie´s avian physiology. 5th ed. New York: Academic Press, 2000:306-313.

  40. Entzeroth R, Matting FR, Werner-Meier R. Structure and function of parasitophorous vacuole in Eimeria species. Inter J Parasitol 1998;28:1015-1018.

  41. Johnson J, Reid WM, Jeffers TK. Practical immunization of chickens against coccidiosis using an attenuated strain of Eimeria tenella. Poult Sci 1979;58:37-41

  42. Garg R, Banerjee DP, Gupta SP. Immune responses in chickens against Eimeria tenella sporozoite antigens. Vet Parasitol 1999;81:1-10.

  43. Tennyson SA, Barta JR. Localization and immunogenicity of a low molecular weight antigen of Eimeria tenella. Parasitol Res 2000;86:453-460.

  44. Barta JR, Tennyson SA, Shito ML, Danforth HD, Martin DS. Partial characterization of a non-proteinaceous, low molecular weight antigen of Eimeria tenella. Parasitol Res 2000;86:461-466.

  45. Miska KB, Fetterer RH, Barfi eld RC. Analysis of transcripts expressed by Eimeria tenella oocysts using substractive hybridization methods. J Parasitol 2004;90:1245-1252.

  46. Long PL, Millard BJ. Immunological differences in Eimeria maxima: effect of a mixed immunizing inoculum on heterologous challenge. Parasitology 1979;79:451-457.

  47. Kimura N, Mimura F, Nishida S, Kobayashi A. Studies on the relationship between intestinal fl ora and cecal coccidiosis in chicken. Poult Sci 1976;55:1375-1383.

  48. Shirley MW, Bedrník P. Live attenuated vaccines against avian coccidiosis: Success with precocious and egg-adapted lines of Eimeria. Parasitol Today 1997;13:481-487.

  49. Vermeulen AN. Progress in recombinant vaccine development against coccidiosis a review and prospects into the millennium. Inter J Parasitol 1998;28:1121-1130.

  50. Vermeulen AN, Shaap DC, Schetter TPM. Control of coccidiosis in chickens by vaccination. Vet Parasitol 2001;100:13-20.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com