4.5 Article

Pathogenicity of fowl adenovirus (FAdV) serotype 4 strain SDJN in Taizhou geese

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 477-485

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2019.1625305

关键词

Fowl adenovirus serotype 4; Taizhou geese; viral load; histopathology; clinical chemistry

资金

  1. Agriculture Research System of China [CARS-42-19]
  2. Tai'shan Industry Leader [LJNY201610]
  3. Funds of Shandong Double Tops Program [SYL2017YSTD11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydropericardium hepatitis syndrome (HHS) is a fatal disease in chickens, mainly caused by fowl adenovirus serotype 4 (FAdV-4). Since June 2015, HHS has appeared in many provinces in China. The disease has spread from broilers to laying hens, breeders and Cherry Valley ducks, seriously endangering the health of the poultry industry in China. In July 2016, an infectious disease was noticed in a goose farm in Jinan, Shandong Province, China, and hydropericardium was the main finding in post mortem investigations. In the actual study, we isolated a FAdV-4 strain from the livers of naturally-infected goslings and designated it as SDJN. We first evaluated its pathogenicity by inoculating Taizhou geese at 10, 20, and 30 days of age with 10(-7.15)EID(50)/0.2 ml doses of the SDJN strain in 1 ml allantoic fluid via subcutaneous injection or oral infection. Clinical signs and pericardial effusion appeared in geese infected subcutaneously at 10 days of age, whereas 20- and 30-day-old geese were not susceptible to FAdV-4. The results of real-time PCR showed that the replication ability of FAdV-4 in geese correlated with the age. Furthermore, results from clinical chemistry showed that FAdV-4 damaged the liver and kidney in geese and the results paralleled viral load and gross lesions. Consequently, FAdV-4 was pathogenic in geese, and the pathogenicity was related to age and mode of infection. This study is the first experimental infection of FAdV-4 in geese, which will provide a basis for further understanding of the disease.

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