Advertisement

Folia Microbiologica

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 459–462 | Cite as

Effect of low and high doses ofSalmonella enteritidis PT4 on experimentally infected chicks

  • A. A. Asheg
  • V. Fedorová
  • J. Pistl
  • M. Levkut
  • V. Revajová
  • L. Kolodzieyski
  • Z. Ševčiková
  • E. Pilipčinec
Papers

Abstract

Chicks (1-d-old, three groups, each containing 50 chicks) were inoculated with 2×102 and 2×108 CFU ofSalmonella enteritidis; the third group were kept as uninoculated control. Five birds from each group were euthanized at intervals from 6 h to 4 weeks post-inoculation (pi). In the lowdose groupS. enteritidis was isolated from 60% cecal samples at 18 h pi. and from 20% of livers at 3 d pi. Individual variation in the frequency ofS. enteritidis recovery was observed in this group. The clearance of salmonella from the organs was faster in the low-dose group, and salmonella was not isolated from the liver and cecum at 21 and at 27 d, pi, respectively. However, in the high-dose group,S. enteritidis was isolated from all ceca and 80% of liver 6 h pi, and salmonella was detected in the cecum and liver throughout the experiment. Serous typhlitis and unabsorbed yolk sac were the most prevalent lesions in both groups. Granulomatous nodules in the cecum were found occasionally in some cases in both inoculated groups, which can play a role as reservoirs in carrier chicks.

Keywords

Pericarditis Bacteriological Examination Microscopic Lesion Chicken Line Organ Colonization 
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. Brownell J.R., Sadler W.W., Fanelli M.J.: Role of caeca, in intestinal infection of chicken withSalmonella typhimurium.Avian Dis. 14, 106–116 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bumstead N., Barrow P.: Resistance toSalmonella gallinarum, S. pullorum andS. enteritidis in inbred lines of chickens.Avian Dis.37, 189–193 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chart H., Rowe B., Baskerville A., Humphrey T.J.: Serological response of chickens toSalmonella enteritidis infection.Epidemiol. Infectol. 104, 63–71 (1990).Google Scholar
  4. Desmidt M., Ducatelle R., Haesebrouck F.: Pathogenesis ofSalmonella enteritidis PT4 after experimental infection of young chickens.Vet. Microbiol. 56, 99–109 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duchet-Suchaxu M., Mompart F., Berthelot F., Beaumont C., Lechopier P., Pardon P.: Differences in frequency, level, and duration of caecal carriage between four outbreed chicken lines infected orally with SE.Avian Dis. 41, 559–567 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gast R.K., Benson S.T.: The comparative virulence for chicks of SE PT4 and isolates of phage types commonly found in the United States.Avian Dis. 36, 567–574 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorham, S.I., Kadavil K., Vaughan E., Lambert H., Abel J., Pert B.: Gross and microscopic lesion in young chickens experimentally infected with SE.Avian Dis. 38, 816–821 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guillot J.F., Beaumont C., Bellatif F., Mouline C., Lantier F., Colin P., Protas J.: Comparison of resistance of various poultry lines to infection byS. enteritidis.Vet. Res. 26, 81–86 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Humphrey T.J., Baskerville A.A., Mawer S., Rowe B., Hopper S.:Salmonella enteritidis PT4 from contents of intact eggs.: a study involving naturally infected hens.Epidemiol. Infectol..103, 415–423 (1989).Google Scholar
  10. Nagaraja K.V., Pomeroy B.S., Williams, J.E.: Paratyphoid infection. pp. 99–130 in B.W. Calneket al. (Eds):Disease of Poultry. 9th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames (USA) 1991.Google Scholar
  11. O’Brien J.D.P.:Salmonella enteritidis infection in broiler chickens.Vet. Rec. 122, 214 (1988).Google Scholar
  12. Protais J.P., Colin, J., Guillot F., Lantier F., Pardon P., Bennejean G.: Lines differences in resistance toSalmonella enteritidis PT4 infection.Brit. Pult. Sci. 37, 329–339 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Qin Z.R., Fukata T., Baba, E., Arakawa A.: Effect ofEimeria tenella onSalmonella enteritidis infection in chickens.Poult. Sci. 74, 1–7 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Timoney J.F., Shivaprasad H.L., Beker R.C., Rowe B.: Egg transmission after infection of hens withSalmonella enteritidis PT4.Vet. Rec. 125, 600–601 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Trebichavský I. Cytokines inSalmonella infection.Folia Microbiol. 44, 457–460 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Xu, Y.M., Pearson G.R., Hinton M.: The colonization of the alimentary tract and visceral organs of chicks with salmonellas following challengevia the feed: bacteriological findings.Brit. Vet. J. 144, 403–410 (1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Folia Microbiologica 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Asheg
    • 1
  • V. Fedorová
    • 2
  • J. Pistl
    • 2
  • M. Levkut
    • 1
  • V. Revajová
    • 1
  • L. Kolodzieyski
    • 1
  • Z. Ševčiková
    • 1
  • E. Pilipčinec
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pathological AnatomyUniversity of Veterinary MedicineKošiceSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of MicrobiologyUniversity of Veterinary MedicineKošiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations