This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ASM journals
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Malkinson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Small, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Malkinson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Small, P. A., Jr.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Infect Immun. 1977 May; 16(2): 587-592
Copyright © 1977 American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Local Immunity Against Newcastle Disease Virus in the Newly Hatched Chicken's Respiratory Tract

Mertyn Malkinson1 and Parker A. Small Jr.

a Department of Immunology and Medical Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610

ABSTRACT

Inoculation of 200 mean egg infectious doses (EID50) of lentogenic Newcastle disease virus strain B1 (NDV-B1) into the air sac of 4-day-old specific-pathogen-free chicks provided significant protection against challenge of the air sac with 100 chicken mean lethal doses (LD50) of velogenic NDV-H but no protection against reinfection when the challenge was by the eye. Conversely, inoculation of the eye with 200 EID50 of NDV-B1 provided significant protection against challenge of the eye but not of the air sac with 100 chicken LD50 of NDV-H. Birds that received both antiserum and intraocular immunization were subsequently protected against both eye and air-sac challenge. On the other hand, birds that received antiserum and air-sac immunization were protected only against air-sac challenge but not against ocular challenge. Low levels of passively administered antibody did not prevent infection of the eye or air sac but greatly reduced the mortality rate after inoculation of either the vaccine or the challenge viruses. Passively administered antibody also suppressed hemagglutination-inhibiting and virus-neutralizing antibody formation stimulated by air-sac infection but not antibody formation stimulated by ocular infection. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that local immunity is responsible for prevention of infection, since birds were immune to reinfection at one site and simultaneously susceptible at the other site of infection.

FOOTNOTES

1 On leave of absence from Kimron Veterinary Institute, Bet Dagan, Israel.

Infect Immun. 1977 May; 16(2): 587-592
Copyright © 1977 American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2010 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»