The Influence of the Major Histocompatibility Locus on Marek’s Disease in the Chicken

  • H. A. Stone
  • W. E. Briles
  • W. H. McGibbon
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 88)


In the early to mid 1960’s Marek’s disease was becoming a severe problem to the poultry industry. This served as a stimulus for our laboratory to initiate research on the disease which eventually evolved to a concerted effort in the late 1960Ts and early 1970Ts. Early studies were plagued by an inability to obtain reproducible results from trial to trial. However, a report by Sevoian (1962) established reliable methodology and facilitated the development of long range research programs. In a relatively short period of time, tissue culture propagation was documented (Churchill and Biggs, 1967; and Solomon, et al., 1968), the causative agent, a DNA virus was found (Biggs, et al., 1968; and Nazerian et al., 1968), its infectious characteristics were intensely investigated (Witter, et al., 1969; Purchase and Biggs, 1967; and Biggs, 1968), and a protective vaccine was developed (Churchill, et al., 1969; and Okazaki et al., 1970). Concurrently, genetic studies were being made by a number of investigators throughout the world. A great amount of effort on the genetic control of Marek’s disease was made by the Northeastern (NE-60) Regional Cooperative Breeding project of which the Regional Poultry Research Laboratory was a member. The general consensus of opinion was that genetic differences in susceptibility existed in both meat and egg type chickens, but it was a difficult task to markedly alter the susceptibility state. Fortunately, lines did exist at East Lansing (Table 1) as well as other locations which showed extreme differences in Marek’s disease susceptibility and lent themselves favorably to the study of genetic control mechanisms.


Blood Group Protective Vaccine Reliable Methodology Genotype Number Tissue Culture Propagation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Biggs, P.M., Immunol. 43: 93 (1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biggs, P.M., A.E. Churchill, D.G. Rootes and R.C. Chubb, Perspectives Virol. 6: 211 (1968).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crittenden, L.B., R.L. Muhm and B.R. Burmester, Poul. Sci. 51: 261 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Churchill, A.E. and P.M. Biggs, Nature 215: 528 (1967).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Churchill, A.E., L.N. Payne, and R.C. Chubb, Nature 221: 744 (1969).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole, R.K., Avian Dis. 12: 9 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen, M.P., J.N. Van Zandt, and G.R.L. Law, Poult. Sci. 46: 1268 (1967).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landsteiner, K. Zbl. Bakt. 27: 357 (1900).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendel, G., Verb. Naturf. Verein Brunn Abh. 4: 3 (1866).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nazerian, K. and B.R. Burmester, Cancer Res. 28: 2454 (1.968).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Okazaki, W., H.G. Purchase, and B.R. Burmester, Avian Dis. 14: 413 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Purchase, H.G. and P.M. Biggs, Res. Vet. Sci. 8: 440 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sevorian, M. and D.M. Chamberlain, Vet. Med. 57: 608 (1962).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Solomon, J.J., R.L. Witter, K. Nazerian and B.R. Burmester Proc. Soc. Expt. Biol. Med. 127: 173 (1968).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Witter, R.L., G.H. Burgoyne, and J.J. Solomon, Avian Dis. 13: 171 (1969).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Stone
    • 2
  • W. E. Briles
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. H. McGibbon
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Regional Poultry Research LaboratoryU.S.D.A., A.R.S.; Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.University of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations