4.5 Article

Vaccination of chickens with Salmonella Pathogenicity Island (SPI) 1 and SPI2 defective mutants of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 2090-2097

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.050

Keywords

Salmonella; SPI1; SPI2; Live oral vaccine; Poultry; Chicken

Funding

  1. Czech Ministry of Agriculture [MZE0002716202]
  2. Czech Ministry of Education [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/01.0006 - ED0006/01/01]
  3. Czech Science Foundation [524/09/0215]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study we were interested in the vaccine potential of two attenuated mutants of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis for poultry. The first mutant was attenuated by the removal of the whole Salmonella Pathogenicity Island 1 (SPI1) and the second mutant was devoid of the whole SPI2. These 2 mutants were used for oral vaccination of 2 chicken lines; Lohmann Brown and ISA Brown. Chickens were vaccinated orally on day 1 of life, revaccinated on day 21 and challenged on day 42. The challenge was performed either orally or intravenously. Despite a slightly different response between the two chicken lines, both the mutants gave protection to poultry against S. Enteritidis challenge as documented by findings such as the bacterial counts in tissues, spleen weight, antibody production and cytokine response (namely IL-17 and IL-22). When the 2 mutants were compared, vaccination with the SPI1 mutant proved to be more effective in the protection of poultry against S. Enteritidis challenge than the vaccination with the SPI2 mutant. On the other hand, vaccination with the SPI2 mutant stimulated a slightly higher antibody production and such a mutant might therefore be a better choice if Salmonella is used as a vector for the delivery of heterologous antigens with a desired stimulation of the humoral part of the immune system. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available