Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:05:03.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction in faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium strain F98 in chickens vaccinated with live and killed S. typhimurium organisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. A. Barrow ,
J. O. Hassan  and
A. Berchieri Jnr
P. A. Barrow
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA
J. O. Hassan
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA
A. Berchieri Jnr
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Chickens given orally at 4 days of age a smooth spectinomycin resistant mutant (Spcr) of Salmonella typhimurium strain F98 excreted the organism in their faeces for approximately 4 weeks. Following oral administration of a nalidixic acid resistant (Nalr) mutant of the same strain 4 weeks later when later when the chickens had virtually cleared themselves of the first infection, these chickens excreted far fewer salmonella organisms and for a shorter time than did a previously uninfected control group of chickens which were infected at the same time with the Nalr mutant. Chickens inoculated intramuscularly at 4 days developed a similar immunity to challenge and also excreted the immunizing strain in their faeces. In contrast intramuscular inoculation or incorporation into the food of formalin-killed S. typhimurium organisms had little lasting effect on the faecal excretion of the challenge strain. Two attenuated mutants of strain F98 Nalr were produced: one was a rough strain produced by lytic bacteriophage and the other was an aro A auxotrophic mutant which had been cured of the 85 kilobase–pair virulence–associated plasmid. These mutants were avirulent for chickens, mice, calves and man and when ingested by human volunteers did not persist in the faeces. When inoculated intramuscularly into chickens they produced an early reduction in faecal excretion of the challenge strain (Spcr) which was not maintained. Oral administration of both strains produced reductions in faecal excretion of the challenge strain. This was much more noticeable with the rough strain which was itself excreted for a much longer period than the parent strain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 413 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Williams, JE. Paratyphoid infections. In: Hofstad, MS, Calnek, BW, Helmboldt, CF, Reid, WM, Yoder, HW, eds. Diseases of poultry. 7th ed.Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
2.Germanier, R. Typhoid fever. In; Germanier, R. ed. Bacterial vaccines. London: Academic Press, 1984.Google Scholar
3.Smith, HW. The use of live vaccines in experimental Salmonella gallinarium infection in chickens with observations on their interference effect. J Hyg 1956; 54: 419–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Smith, HW. The immunization of mice, calves and pigs against Salmonella dublin and Salmonella chloerae–suis infections. J Hyg 1965; 63: 117–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Germanier, R. Immunity in experimental salmonellosis. III. Comparative immunization with viable and heat–inactivated cells of Salmonella typhimurium. Infect Immun 1972: 5: 792–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Collins, FM, Carter, PB. Comparative immunogenicity of heat–killed and living oral Salmonella vaccines. Infect Immun 1972; 6: 451–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bisping, W, Dimitriadis, I, Seippel, M. Versuche zur oralen Immunisierung van Hühnern mit hitzeinaktivierter Salmonella–Vakzine 1. Mitteilung: Impf–und Infektionsversuche an Hühnerküken. Zentralbl Veterinürmed 1971; B, 18: 306–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Thain, JA, Baxter-Jones, C., Wilding, GP, Cullen, GA. Serological response of turkey hens to vaccination with Salmonella hadar and its effect on their subsequently challenged embryos and poults. Res Vet Sci 1984; 36: 320–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Truscott, RB. Oral Salmonella antigens for the control of Salmonella in chickens. Avian Dis 1981; 25: 810–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Pritchard, DG, Nivas, SC, York, MD, Pomeroy, BS. Effect of Gal-E mutant of Salmonella typhimurium on experimental salmonellosis in chickens. Avian Dis 1978; 22: 562–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Schlimmel, D, Linde, K, Marx, G, Ziedler, K., Zum, Einsatzeiner Smd–Salmonella–typhimurium Mutante bei Kücken.Arch Exp Veterinärmed 1974; 28: 551–8.Google Scholar
12.Suphabphant, W, York, MD, Pomeroy, B. Use of two vaccines (live G30D or killed RW16) in the prevention of Salmonella typhimurium infections in chickens. Avian Dis 1983; 27: 602–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Knivett, VA, Stevens, WK. The evaluation of a live salmonella vaccine in mice and chickens. J Hyg 1971; 69, 233–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Knivett, VA, Tucker, JF. Comparison of oral vaccination or furazolidone prophylaxis for Salmonella typhimurium infection in chicks. Br Vet J 1972; 128: 24–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Hone, DM, Attridge, SR, Forrest, B et al. , A gal E via (Vi antigen–negative) mutant of Salmonella typhi Ty 2 retains virulence in humans. Infect Immun 1988; 56. 1326–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The virulence of salmonella strains for chickens: their excretion by infected chickens. J Hyg 1980; 84: 479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Xu, YM, Pearson, GR, Hinton, MH. The colonization of the alimentary tract and visceral organs of chickens with Salmonella following challenge via the feed: bacteriological findings. Br Vet J 1988; 144: 403–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Barrow, PA, Huggins, MB, Lovell, MA, Simpson, JM. Observations on the pathogenicity of experimental Salmonella typhimurium infection in chickens. Res Vet Sci 1987; 42: 194–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Barrow, PA, Simpson, JM, Lovell, MA. Intestinal colonization in the chicken by food– poisoning Salmonella serotypes; microbial characteristics associated with faecal excretion. Avian Path 1988; 17: 571–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The effect of antibiotic therapy on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by experimentally infected chickens. J Hyg 1975; 75: 275–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The effect of antimicrobial feed additives on the colonization of the alimentary tract of chickens by Salmonella typhimurium. J Hyg 1978; 80: 217–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Impey, CS, Mead, GC, George, SM. Competitive exclusion of Salmonellas from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of the adult bird. J Hyg 1982; 89, 479–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Barrow, PA. Further observations on the effect of feeding diets containing avoparcin on the excretion of salmonellas by experimentally infected chickens. Epidmiol Infect 1989: 102: 239–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Davis, RW, Botstein, D, Roth, JR. A manual for genetic engineering–advanced bacterial genetics. New York: Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, 1980.Google Scholar
25.Meynell, GG, Meynell, E. Theory and practice in experimental biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
26.Bochner, BR, Huang, H-C, Schieven, GL, Ames, BN. Positive selection for loss of tetracyeline resistance. J Bacteriol 1980; 143: 926–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Barrow, PA, Lovell, MA. Invasion of Vero cells by Salmonella species. J Med Microbiol 1989; 28: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Barrow, PA, Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The effect of feeding diets containing avoparcin on the excretion of salmonellas by chickens experimentally infected with natural sources of salmonella organisms. J Hyg 1984; 93: 439–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Walters, DE. On the reliability of Bayesian confidence limits for a difference of two populations. Biometrical J 1966; 28: 337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Miles, AA, Misra, SS, Irwin, JO. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J Hyg 1938; 38: 732–49.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Statutory Instruments No.285.The Zoonoses Order, London: HMSO, 1989.Google Scholar
32.Smith, HW. The Incidence of transmissible antibiotic resistance amongst salmonella isolated from poultry in England and Wales. J Med Microbiol 1970; 3: 181–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed