Failure of maternally derived yolk IgG to reach detectable concentrations in the sera of nestling budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus)
ABSTRACT Transfer of maternal immunoglobulin G (IgG) to the yolk and nestling was investigated in the budgerigar. Specific antibodies to avian polyomavirus and Newcastle disease virus could be detected in 82% of yolk extracts of eggs from seropositive hens. Using a double immunodiffusion assay with anti-chicken IgG antibodies, IgG could also be detected in yolk supernatants with virus neutralizing activity. In all assays, IgG concentrations in the yolk extracts were significantly less than those of the adult budgerigar serum. No antiviral activity was detected in nestling serum. Examination of nestling serum with the double immunodiffusion assay and an immuno-dot-blot technique specific for IgG showed that detectable concentrations of IgG are not present in nestling serum until after the yolk sac is fully absorbed. This observation, coupled with the absence of specific anti-viral antibody in nestlings of seropositive hens, indicated that none of the yolk sac antibody reached the nestling circulation.
- SourceAvailable from: Gustavo Tomás[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Summary 1. This study presents an easy protocol to measure the amount of immunoglobulins from the blood serum of different bird species in the wild ( Ficedula hypoleuca Pallas, Parus caeruleus L., Lanius meridionalis Temminkck, Lanius collurio L., Athene noctua Scopoli and Falco tinnunculus L.) by direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA using commercial antichicken antibodies. 2. Additionally, the ELISA technique is validated for detecting serum immunoglobulins by means of other electrophoretic (sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, SDS-PAGE, and native electrophoresis) and immunological (Western blot) methods. 3. The results by Western blot show that the commercial antibody recognized proteins with apparent molecular weight according to heavy and light chains of immunoglobulins. 4. Both ELISA and Western blot data were correlated, implying that the commercial antibody bound to immunoglobulins and not to other proteins or ELISA plates. Densitometric data achieved by SDS-PAGE and native electrophoresis were only correlated in some species indicating a problem in detecting clearly the heavy and light chains, and γ -globulin fraction, respectively. 5. It is concluded that the proposed protocol is easy to carry out and may be used to detect total serum immunoglobulins from most bird species.Functional Ecology 09/2003; 17(5):700 - 706. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2003.00771.x · 4.86 Impact Factor
Article: Avian Polyomavirus: My Thoughts
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to produce rabbit anti-cockatiel immunoglobulin G (IgG) and compare its cross-reactivity with sera from eight other psittacine birds: Quaker parakeet, budgerigar, green-wing macaw, blue-fronted Amazon parrot, eclectus parrot, African grey parrot, Patagonian conure, Moluccan cockatoo. Cockatiel IgG did not bind to protein A or G; therefore, these proteins could not be used in column chromatography to isolate the IgG. A combination of serum IgG precipitation by ammonium sulfate and yolk IgG extraction from egg was loaded in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel upon which the IgG was resolved by electrophoresis. The resolved IgG in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel was stained with Coomassie blue, cut, crushed in phosphate-buffered saline, and injected into rabbits. The rabbit anti-cockatiel IgG produced in this way reacted with a single protein in gel immunodiffusion assay with all nine psittacine bird sera but not with those of chicken and ostrich. Immunoelectrophoresis confirmed the cross-reactivity of different psittacine sera with the anti-cockatiel IgG serum but not with ostrich and chicken sera. This antiserum detected antibody responses in sera from cockatiels vaccinated against chlamydial major outer membrane protein in an immunoblot assay.Avian Diseases 01/1999; 43(1):48-54. DOI:10.2307/1592761 · 1.11 Impact Factor