Advertisement

Archives of Virology

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 227–238 | Cite as

Taxonomic studies on strains of avian infectious bronchitis virus using neutralisation tests in tracheal organ cultures

  • J. H. Darbyshire
  • J. G. Rowell
  • Jane K. A. Cook
  • R. W. Peters
Original Papers

Summary

The antigenic relationships of 24 strains of avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) were investigated by serum neutralisation tests performed in chick embryo tracheal organ cultures.

The serum dilution that neutralised 100 median ciliostatic doses (CD50) of virus was estimated from the linear relationship between varying concentrations of each virus strain and the neutralisation titre of homologous antiserum; this dilution defined 1 antibody unit. Antisera diluted to contain 20 antibody units were then tested by neutralisation against 1.5–2.5 log10 CD50 of each strain.

Clusters of both strains and antisera in turn were established by methods of numerical taxonomy using as measures of resemblance Euclidean distance and correlation coefficient, and by analysis by principal components. These analyses identified a group of 8 similar strains; neutralisation of the remaining 16 strains was slight.

Similar results were obtained by classifying antisera, except that a further group of 3 antisera was demonstrated, each having a neutralising capacity for most strains. Implications for vaccine formulation are discussed.

Keywords

Bronchitis Virus Strain Chick Embryo Taxonomic Study Infectious Bronchitis Virus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Archetti, I., Horsfall, F. L.: Persistent antigenic variation of influenza A viruses after incomplete neutralization in ovo with heterologous immune serum. J. exp. Med.92, 441–462 (1950).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cowen, B. S., Hitchner, S. B.: Serotyping of avian infectious bronchitis viruses by the virus-neutralization test. Avian Dis.19, 583–595 (1975).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cumming, R. B.: Infectious avian nephrosis (uraemia) in Australia. Austr. vet. J.39, 145–147 (1963).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cunningham, C. H.: Immunologic methods in avian research: neutralisation test. Avian Dis.17, 227–235 (1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darbyshire, J. H., Cook, Jane K. A., Peters, R. W.: Organ culture studies on the efficiency of infection of chicken tissues with avian infectious bronchitis virus. Brit. J. exp. Pathol.57, 443–454 (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darbyshire, J. H., Cook, Jane K. A., Peters, R. W.: Growth comparisons of avian infectious bronchitis virus strains in organ cultures of chicken tissues. Arch. Virol.56, 317–325 (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson, P. S., Gough, R. E.: Antigenic variation in strains of avian infectious bronchitis virus. Arch. ges. Virusforsch.34, 32–39 (1971).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowdle, W. R., Coleman, Marion T., Hall, E. C., Knez, Violetta: Properties of the Hong Kong influenza virus. 2. Antigenic relationship of the Hong Kong virus haemagglutinin to that of other human influenza viruses. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org.41, 419–424 (1969).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fontaine, J., Mackowiak, C., Roumiantzeff, M.: Etude serologique des variantes du virus aphteux. International Symposium on Foot-and-Mouth disease: Variants and Immunity, Lyon, 1967; Symp. Series immunobiol. Standard.8, 13–64. Basel-New York: Karger 1968.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forman, A. J.: A study of foot-and-mouth disease virus strains by complement fixation. II. A comparison of tube and microplate tests for the differentiation of strains. J. Hyg. (Camb.)72, 407–413 (1974).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofstad, M. S.: Antigenic differences among isolates of avian infectious bronchitis virus. Amer. J. vet. Res.19, 740–743 (1958).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hopkins, S. R.: Serological comparisons of strains of infectious bronchitis virus using plaque-purified isolants. Avian Dis.18, 231–239 (1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, R. B., Marquardt, W. W.: The neutralizing characteristics of strains of infectious bronchitis virus as measured by the constant virus-variable serum method in chicken tracheal cultures. Avian Dis.19, 82–90 (1975).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jungherr, E. L., Chomiak, T. W., Luginbuhl, R. E.: Immunologic differences in strains of infectious bronchitis virus. In: Proc. 60th Ann. Meet. U.S. Livestock San. Assoc., 203–209 (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kapikian, A. Z., Conant, R. M., Hamparian, V. V., Chanock, R. M., Chapple, P. J., Dick, E. C., Fenters, J. D., Gwaltney, J. M., Hamre, D., Holper, J. C., Jordan, W. S., Lennette, E. H., Melnick, J. L., Mogabgab, W. J., Mufson, M. A., Phillips, C. A., Schieble, J. H., Tyrrell, D. A. J.: Rhinoviruses: a numbering system. Nature (Lond.)213, 761–763 (1967).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, Anna M.: Numerical taxonomy and influenza B virus. Nature217, 620–622 (1968).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, Anna M., Tauroso, N. M.: A method for the formulation of influenza virus vaccine using numerical taxonomy. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org.39, 261–270 (1968).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lukert, P. D.: Avian infectious bronchitis virus characteristics of an inhibitor found in serum. Arch. ges. Virusforsch.40, 93–104 (1973).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mainardi, D.: Immunological distances among some gallinaceous birds. Nature (Lond.)184, 913–914 (1959).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meier-Ewert, H., Gibbs, A. J., Dimmock, N. J.: Studies on antigenic variations of the haemagglutinin and neuraminidase of swine influenza virus isolates. J. gen. Virol.6, 409–419 (1970).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reed, L. J., Muench, H.: A simple method of estimating fifty per cent end points. Amer. J. Hyg.27, 493–497 (1938).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seal, H. L.: Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Biologists, 209 pp. London: Methuen 1964.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sneath, P. H. A., Sokal, R. R.: Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classification, 573 pp. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company 1973.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sokal, R. R., Michener, C. D.: A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull.38, 1409–1438 (1958).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sokal, R. R., Sneath, P. H. A.: Principals of Numerical Taxonomy, 359 pp. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company. French translation published by Laboratoire Central, 450 pp. Bordeaux: Compagnie Française des Petroles 1963.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ward, J. H., Jr.: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. amer. statist. Ass.58, 236–244 (1963).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams, W. T., Dale, M. B.: Fundamental problems in numerical taxonomy. Adv. Bot. Res.2, 35–68 (1965).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winterfield, R. W., Hitchner, S. B.: Etiology of an infectious nephritisnephrosis syndrome of chickens. Amer. J. vet. Res.23, 1273–1279 (1962).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wishart, D.: CLUSTAN 1C User Manual, 124 pp. London: University College 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Darbyshire
    • 1
  • J. G. Rowell
    • 2
  • Jane K. A. Cook
    • 1
  • R. W. Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.Microbiology DepartmentHoughton Poultry Research StationHoughton, HuntingdonEngland
  2. 2.Agricultural Research Council Statistics Group, Department of Applied BiologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations