4.5 Article

Exploitation of Intestinal Colonization-Inhibition Between Salmonella Organisms for Live Vaccines in Poultry - Potential and Limitations

期刊

ZOONOSES AND PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 58, 期 8, 页码 540-548

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2011.01400.x

关键词

Salmonella; chicken; intestinal colonization-inhibition

资金

  1. European Union [FOOD-CT-2003-505523]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunization represents one of the most important methods to increase the resistance of chickens against Salmonella infection. In addition to the development of an adaptive immune response, oral administration of live Salmonella strains to day-old chicks provides protection against infection within hours by intestinal colonization-inhibition. For the exploitation of this phenomenon, practical information on colonization-inhibition between Salmonella organisms is needed. Colonization-inhibition capacity between Salmonella strains from serogroups B, C1, C2, D and G was assessed in chickens. The most profound level of intestinal colonization-inhibition occurred between isogenic strains. Inhibition between strains of the same serovar was greater than that between strains of different serovars. The degree of inhibition between different serovars was not sufficiently high to identify a single strain which might inhibit a wide range of other Salmonella organisms. However, as Salmonella Enteritidis is the dominant serovar in poultry in many countries and because of the profound colonization-inhibition within this serovar there is a considerable potential to exploit this phenomenon in the development of novel live S. Enteritidis vaccines. Treatment of young chicks with mixtures of different Salmonella serovars resulted not only in a very strong growth inhibition of the isogenic strains but also in a substantial inhibition of heterologous serovars. The potential of mixtures of heterologous Salmonella strains as a Salmonella Inhibition Culture and as a live Salmonella vaccine should be further explored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据