మా గ్రూప్ ప్రతి సంవత్సరం USA, యూరప్ & ఆసియా అంతటా 3000+ గ్లోబల్ కాన్ఫరెన్స్ ఈవెంట్లను నిర్వహిస్తుంది మరియు 1000 కంటే ఎక్కువ సైంటిఫిక్ సొసైటీల మద్దతుతో 700+ ఓపెన్ యాక్సెస్ జర్నల్లను ప్రచురిస్తుంది , ఇందులో 50000 మంది ప్రముఖ వ్యక్తులు, ప్రఖ్యాత శాస్త్రవేత్తలు ఎడిటోరియల్ బోర్డ్ సభ్యులుగా ఉన్నారు.
ఎక్కువ మంది పాఠకులు మరియు అనులేఖనాలను పొందే ఓపెన్ యాక్సెస్ జర్నల్స్
700 జర్నల్స్ మరియు 15,000,000 రీడర్లు ప్రతి జర్నల్ 25,000+ రీడర్లను పొందుతున్నారు
Guta Wakjira Adino
Background: Infectious bursal disease is a contagious viral infection that primarily affects young chickens and can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Vaccination with live attenuated infectious bursal disease viruses has been used to prevent the disease. The primary mechanism of the protective immune response in infectious bursal disease infection is humoral immunity. The route of live infectious bursal disease vaccine administration can affect its immunogenicity. This paper aims to determine the immunogenicity of a live infectious bursal disease vaccine administered via different routes of administration.
Methods: The complete random block design method was used to divide 60 mixed sexes, 7-day-old Bovan brown chickens breeds into six experimental groups, each with ten chickens: Five treatments and one control group. Each experimental group received two doses of the live Infectious bursal disease vaccine at 7 and 21 days old via drinking water, intra ocular, intranasal, subcutaneous routes and intramuscular. As a challenge control, the nonimmunized control group was used. The indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay was used to test serum samples for antibody titers.
Results: There is no significant difference between the mean of the sample positivity ratio of group one through three at 95% confidence interval whereas the statistical result revealed that the presence of significant antibody titer difference was seen in comparison of control group with subcutaneous and intramuscular. The mean antibody SP ratio of group four and five were found to be superior to other groups.
Conclusion: This finding suggested that for better antibody response, the subcutaneous and intramuscular routes of administration are recommended whereas drinking water, intraocular and intranasal routes are not recommended. Further research is also required to better understand why one administration route induces more effective immunity than the others.