Suboptimal protection against H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses from Vietnam in ducks vaccinated with commercial poultry vaccines
Exotic and Emerging Avian Viral Diseases Unit, Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 934 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30605, USA.Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.62). 08/2013; 31(43). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.046
Domestic ducks are the second most abundant poultry species in many Asian countries including Vietnam, and play a critical role in the epizootiology of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) [FAO]. In this study, we examined the protective efficacy in ducks of two commercial H5N1 vaccines widely used in Vietnam; Re-1 containing A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 hemagglutinin (HA) clade 0 antigens, and Re-5 containing A/duck/Anhui/1/2006 HA clade 2.3.4 antigens. Ducks received two doses of either vaccine at 7 and at 14 or 21 days of age followed by challenge at 30 days of age with viruses belonging to the HA clades 1.1, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124.A and 126.96.36.199.B isolated between 2008 and 2011 in Vietnam. Ducks vaccinated with the Re-1 vaccine were protected after infection with the two H5N1 HPAI viruses isolated in 2008 (HA clades 1.1 and 188.8.131.52) showing no mortality and limited virus shedding. The Re-1 and Re-5 vaccines conferred 90-100% protection against mortality after challenge with the 2010 H5N1 HPAI viruses (HA clade 184.108.40.206.A); but vaccinated ducks shed virus for more than 7 days after challenge. Similarly, the Re-1 and Re-5 vaccines only showed partial protection against the 2011 H5N1 HPAI viruses (HA clade 220.127.116.11.A and 18.104.22.168.B), with a high proportion of vaccinated ducks shedding virus for more than 10 days. Furthermore, 50% mortality was observed in ducks vaccinated with Re-1 and challenged with the 22.214.171.124.B virus. The HA proteins of the 2011 challenge viruses had the greatest number of amino acid differences from the two vaccines as compared to the viruses from 2008 and 2009, which correlates with the lesser protection observed with these viruses. These studies demonstrate the suboptimal protection conferred by the Re-1 and Re-5 commercial vaccines in ducks against H5N1 HPAI clade 126.96.36.199 viruses, and underscore the importance of monitoring vaccine efficacy in the control of H5N1 HPAI in ducks.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The use of anti-influenza vaccines and drugs has limitations due to emergence of variants to vaccines (Savill et al. 2006; Domenech et al. 2009; Cattoli et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2012) and anti-influenza drugs (Cheung et al. 2006; Hurt et al. 2007; He et al. 2008; Boltz et al. 2010; Tosh et al. 2011; Govorkova et al. 2013). Besides, the vaccine strain selection is so stringent that vaccination against one lineage/ clade of virus does not afford protection to the challenge virus from other clades in poultry (Cha et al. 2013). Because of the global human and animal health importance of the H5N1 HPAI, developing an alternative antiviral agent against H5N1 is urgently needed. "
ABSTRACT: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus is a threat to animal and public health worldwide. Till date, the H5N1 virus has claimed 402 human lives, with a mortality rate of 58% and has caused the death or culling of millions of poultry since 2003. In this study, we have designed three siRNAs (PB2-2235, PB2-479 and NP-865) targeting PB2 and NP genes of avian influenza virus and evaluated their potential, measured by hemagglutination (HA), plaque reduction and Real time RT-PCR assay, in inhibiting H5N1 virus (A/chicken/Navapur/7972/2006) replication in MDCK cells. The siRNAs caused 8- to 16-fold reduction in virus HA titers at 24 h after challenged with 100TCID50 of virus. Among these siRNAs, PB2-2235 offered the highest inhibition of virus replication with 16-fold reduction in virus HA titer, 80% reduction in viral plaque counts and 94% inhibition in expression of specific RNA at 24 h. The other two siRNAs had 68-73% and 87-88% reduction in viral plaque counts and RNA copy number, respectively. The effect of siRNA on H5N1 virus replication continued till 48h (maximum observation period). These findings suggest that PB2-2235 could efficiently inhibit HPAI H5N1 virus replication.Journal of Biosciences 06/2015; 40(2). DOI:10.1007/s12038-015-9524-6 · 2.06 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The emergence of the HPAI A/H5N1 viruses in early 2000s has accelerated the H5 gene undergoing onto dynamic evolution in a high speed, generating numerous new clades/subclades of the second-, third-, and forth-order subclades, mostly within clades 1 and 2 [3,44]. Not all the above mentioned clades have been introduced into Vietnam (Fig. 1) [41,42,43,44,45,46], but largely, the rooting clades have further diversified to form new serial-order subclades, heavily affecting the avian influenza occurences in poultry and wild birds, and complicating the epidemiologic situation in Vietnam [40,42,44,47,48,49]. "
ABSTRACT: Based on hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA), influenza A virus is divided into 18 different HA (H1 to H18) and 11 NA types (N1 to N11), opening the possibility for reassortment between the HA and NA genes to generate new HxNy subtypes (where x could be any HA and y is any NA, possibly). In recent four years, since 2010, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses of H5N1 subtype (HPAI A/H5N1) have become highly enzootic and dynamically evolved to form multiple H5 HA clades, particularly in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, Cambodia, and Bangladesh. So far, after more than 10 years emerged in Vietnam (since late 2003), HPAI A/H5N1 is still posing a potential risk of causing outbreaks in poultry, with high frequency of annual endemics. Intragenic variation (referred to as antigenic drift) in HA (e.g., H5) has given rise to form numerous clades, typically marking the major timelines of the evolutionary status and vaccine application in each period. The dominance of genetically and antigenically diversified clade 188.8.131.52 (of subgroups a, b, c), clade 1.1 (1.1.1/1.1.2) and re-emergence of clade 7.1/7.2 at present, has urged Vietnam to the need for dynamically applied antigenicity-matching vaccines, i.e., the plan of importing Re-6 vaccine for use in 2014, in parallel use of Re-1/Re-5 since 2006. In this review, we summarize evolutionary features of HPAI A/H5N1 viruses and clade formation during recent 10 years (2004-2014). Dynamic of vaccine implementation in Vienam is also remarked.07/2014; 3(2):117-27. DOI:10.7774/cevr.2014.3.2.117
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although little has changed in vaccine technology for avian influenza virus (AIV) in the past 20 years, the approach to vaccination of poultry (chickens, turkeys and ducks) for avian influenza has evolved as highly pathogenic AIV has become endemic in several regions of the world. Vaccination for low pathogenicity AIV is also becoming routine in regions where there is a high level of field challenge. In contrast, some countries will not use vaccination at all and some will only use it on an emergency basis during eradication efforts (i.e. stamping-out). There are pros and cons to each approach and, since every outbreak situation is different, no one method will work equally well in all situations. Numerous practical aspects must be considered when developing an AIV control program with vaccination as a component, such as: (1) the goals of vaccination must be defined; (2) the population to be vaccinated must be clearly identified; (3) there must be a plan to obtain and administer good quality vaccine in a timely manner and to achieve adequate coverage with the available resources; (4) risk factors for vaccine failure should be mitigated as much as possible; and, most importantly, (5) biosecurity must be maintained as much as possible, if not enhanced, during the vaccination period.The Veterinary Journal 10/2014; 202(3). DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.09.017 · 1.76 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.