Pathogenicity evaluation of different Newcastle disease virus chimeras in 4-week-old chickens
The aim of this study was to evaluate the disease-inducing ability of four chimeric Newcastle disease viruses (NDV) by clinicopathological assessment. The infectious clones were previously generated by insertion of hemagglutinin–neuraminidase (HN) and/or fusion (F) genes from virulent strains (Turkey North Dakota and California 02) into a mesogenic strain (Anhinga) backbone. Groups of 4-week-old chickens were inoculated via eye drop instillation, clinical signs were monitored daily, and necropsies with collection of tissues were performed at 2, 5, 10, and 14 days post infection. Tissue sections were evaluated for histopathology and immunohistochemistry for NDV nucleoprotein. All viruses replicated successfully in the natural host, although viral recovery, seroconversion, and extent of immunohistochemical staining were greatest from birds infected with those viruses containing both F and HN genes from the same virulent virus. There was minimal to no increase in clinicopathologic disease due to infection with the chimeras compared to the recombinant backbone. However, all birds developed histological evidence of encephalitis. The results suggest that the inherent virulence of Turkey North Dakota and California 2002 strains is due to more than the simple presence of their F and HN genes.
KeywordsNewcastle disease Fusion protein Hemagglutinin–neuraminidase Immunohistochemistry Infectious clones Pathogenesis
We would like to thank Dr. Jack King for his constant advisement during this project and Timothy Olivier for his technical support.
- Alexander, D.J., 1998. Newcastle Disease. In: D.E. Swayne, M.W. Jackwood, J.E. Pearson, W.M. Reed (eds), A Laboratory Manual for the Isolation and Identification of Avian Pathogens 4th edition, (Kenneth Square: American Association of Avian Pathologists), 156-163.Google Scholar
- Alexander, D.J., 2003. Newcastle Disease, Other Avian Paramyxoviruses, and Penumovirus Infections. In: Y.M. Shaif, H.J.Barnes., J.R. Glisson, A.M. Fadly, L.R. McDouglad, D.E.Swayne (eds), Diseases of Poultry 11th edition, (Iowa state University Press, Ames), 63-87.Google Scholar
- Gotoh, B., Ohnishi, Y., Inocencio, N.M., Esaki, E., Nakayama, K., Barr, P.J., Thomas, G., Nagai, Y., 1992. Mammalian subtilisin-related proteinases in cleavage activation of the paramyxovirus fusion glycoprotein: superiority of furin/PACE to PC2 or PC1/PC3, Journal of Virology, 66, 6391-6397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nagai, Y., 1995. Virus activation by host proteinases. A pivotal role in the spread of infection, tissue tropism and pathogenicity, Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 39, 1-9.Google Scholar
- O.I.E 2008. Newcastle Disease. In: World Organization for Animal Health-Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, 6th edition, Paris, 576-589.Google Scholar
- Oldoni, I., Brown, C.C., King, D.J., Samal, S., Seal, B.S., 2005. The use of in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to study the pathogenesis of various Newcastle disease virus strains and recombinants in embryonated chicken eggs. Microbial Pathogenesis, 39, 69-75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pedersen, J.C., Senne, D.A., Woolcock, P.R., Kinde, H., King, D.J., Wise, M.G., Panigrahy, B., Seal, B.S., 2004. Phylogenetic relationships among virulent Newcastle disease virus isolates from the 2002-2003 outbreak in California and other recent outbreaks in North America, Journal Clinical Microbiology, 42, 2329-2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seal, B.S., King, D.J., Bennett, J.D., 1995. Characterization of Newcastle disease virus isolates by reverse transcription PCR coupled to direct nucleotide sequencing and development of sequence database for pathotype prediction and molecular epidemiological analysis, Journal Clinical Microbiology, 33, 2624-2630.Google Scholar
- Wakamatsu, N., King, D.J., Seal, B.S., Brown, C.C. 2007. Detection of Newcastle disease virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and comparison with immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization, J Vet Diagn Invest, 19, 396-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar