Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2021; 49(04): 249-255
DOI: 10.1055/a-1520-1369
Original Article

Invasion inhibition effects and immunogenicity after vaccination of SPF chicks with a Salmonella Enteritidis live vaccine

Nachweis von Invasionshemmeffekten und der Immunogenität nach Impfung von SPF-Küken mit einer Salmonella-Enteritidis-Lebendvakzine
Sven Springer
1   Ceva Innovation Center GmbH, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
,
Tobias Theuß
1   Ceva Innovation Center GmbH, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
,
Imre Toth
2   Ceva Phylaxia Veterinary Biologicals co. Ltd, Budapest, Hungary
,
Zsuzsanna Szogyenyi
2   Ceva Phylaxia Veterinary Biologicals co. Ltd, Budapest, Hungary
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Meat and eggs from chickens infected with Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Infantis are considered to be an important source of Salmonella infections for humans. In order to control Salmonella infections in chickens, basic biosecurity measures are taken in combination with inactivated or attenuated live vaccines. Apart from an adaptive immune response, some live vaccines also induce innate immune mechanisms that prevent or inhibit systemic invasion with homologous Salmonella serovars. It is unknown whether these invasion inhibition effects are also directed against heterologous Salmonella serovars. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the adaptive immune response after vaccination with a Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 4 live vaccine is also directed against other phage types of Salmonella Enteritidis and Typhimurium.

Material and methods Specific pathogen-free day-old chicks were vaccinated orally with a commercially available Salmonella Enteritidis live vaccine. To test the invasion inhibition effect, the animals were challenged orally with a labelled Salmonella Typhimurium or Salmonella Infantis strain 1 day after vaccination. To demonstrate the adaptive immune response against non-phage type 4 Salmonella Enteritidis strains and a monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium strain, the chickens were challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis strains of phage types 1, 8 and 21 and a monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium strain (Definitive Type 193). After challenge, the abundance of the challenge strain in liver and cecal tissue was enumerated and compared with a corresponding control group.

Results Findings showed that the live Salmonella Enteritidis vaccine inhibits systemic invasion after early infection with Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Infantis. Furthermore, adaptive immunity against the tested non-phage type 4 Salmonella Enteritidis strains and the monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium strain was demonstrated.

Conclusion and clinical relevance The results of this study demonstrate that vaccination with the Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 4 live vaccine significantly inhibits the invasion of Salmonella Typhimurium and Infantis. Furthermore, an adaptive immune response was also detected against non-phage type 4 Salmonella Enteritidis strains and a monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium strain.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel Für den Eintrag von Salmonellen in die Lebensmittelkette des Menschen haben Infektionen der Hühner mit Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium und Salmonella Infantis große Bedeutung. Zur Bekämpfung von Infektionen werden, zusätzlich zu veterinärhygienischen Maßnahmen, inaktivierte Impfstoffe und Lebendimpfstoffe auf der Basis attenuierter Impfstämme eingesetzt. Neben einer adaptiven Immunantwort induzieren bestimmte Impfstämme angeborene Immunmechanismen, die eine Invasion des Erregers in innere Organe verhindern bzw. behindern. Es ist ungeklärt, ob sich diese Hemmungseffekte auch gegen andere Salmonella-Serovare richten. Weiterhin ist nicht bekannt, ob sich die adaptive Immunantwort nach Impfung mit einem Salmonella-Enteritidis-Phagentyp-4-Lebendimpfstoff auch auf andere Lysotypen von Salmonella Enteritidis und Typhimurium erstreckt.

Material und Methode Eintagsküken wurden mit einer Salmonella-Enteritidis-Lebendvakzine oral vakziniert. Zur Prüfung des Auftretens der Invasionshemmung wurden die Tiere am Tag darauf mit einem markierten Salmonella-Typhimurium- bzw. Salmonella-Infantis-Stamm infiziert. Zum Nachweis der adaptiven Immunantwort erfolgte nach der Impfung eine orale Infektionsbelastung mit markierten Salmonella-Enteritidis-Stämmen der Phagetypen 1, 8 und 21 am 63., 42. und 51. Lebenstag sowie einem monophasischen Salmonella-Typhimurium-Stamm („Definitive Type“ 193) am 17. Lebenstag. Nach der Infektion wurde zu verschiedenen Zeitpunkten der Infektionsstammgehalt in Leber und Blinddarmgewebe ermittelt und mit den Werten einer nicht geimpften Kontrollgruppe verglichen.

Ergebnisse Die Impfung mit dem Salmonella-Enteritidis-Lebendimpfstoff führte zu einer signifikanten Reduzierung der Invasion in die Blinddarmschleimhaut und Leber nach früher Infektion mit Salmonella Typhimurium und Salmonella Infantis. Weiterhin induzierte die Impfung eine adaptive Immunität gegen die getesteten „Non-Phagentyp-4“-Salmonella-Enteritidis-Stämme und den monophasischen Salmonella-Typhimurium-Stamm.

Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass eine Impfung mit dem Salmonella-Enteritidis-Phagentyp-4-Lebendimpfstoff eine frühe systemische Invasion mit Salmonella Typhimurium und Salmonella Infantis behindert. Gleichzeitig war eine adaptive Immunantwort gegen Salmonella-Enteritidis-Stämme, die nicht zum Phagentyp 4 gehören, und einen monophasischen Salmonella Typhimurium-Stamm nachweisbar.

Key words

Immune response - Salmonella Typhimurium - monophasic - phage type - challenge model - serology

Schlüsselwörter

Immunantwort - Salmonella Typhimurium - monophasisch - Phagentyp - Infektionsmodell - Serologie


Publication History

Received: 20 November 2020

Accepted: 07 May 2021

Article published online:
23 August 2021

© 2021. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommer-cial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Anonymous. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA Journal 2019; 17 (12) 5926 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5926.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Collard JM, Bertrand S, Dierick K. et al. Drastic decrease of Salmonella Enteritidis isolated from humans in Belgium in 2005, shift in phage types and influence on foodborne outbreaks. Epidemiol Infect 2008; 136 (06) 771-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dallman T, Inns T, Jombart T. et al. Phylogenetic structure of European Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak correlates with national and international egg distribution network. Microb Genom 2016; 2 (08) e000070 DOI: 10.1099/mgen.0.000070.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lillehoj EP, Yun CH, Lillehoj HS. Vaccination against the avian enteropathogens Eimeria, Cryptosporidium and Salmonella. Anim Health Res Rev 2000; 1: 47-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Braukmann M, Barrow PA, Berndt A. et al. Combination of competitive exclusion and immunisation with a live Salmonella vaccine in newly hatched chickens: Immunological and microbiological effects. Res Vet Sci 2016; 107: 34-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cooper GL, Venables LM, Woodward MJ. et al. Invasiveness and persistence of Salmonella enteritidis, Salmonella typhimurium, and a genetically defined S. enteritidis aroA strain in young chickens. Infect Immun 1994; 62 (11) 4739-4746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Methner U. Immunisation of chickens with live Salmonella vaccines – Role of booster vaccination. Vaccine 2018; 36 (21) 2973-2977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hassan JO, Curtiss 3rd R. Effect of vaccination of hens with an avirulent strain of Salmonella typhimurium on immunity of progeny challenged with wild-Type Salmonella strains. Infect Immun 1996; 64 (03) 938-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Springer S, Lindner T, Ahrens M. et al. Duration of immunity induced in chickens by an attenuated live Salmonella enteritidis vaccine and an inactivated Salmonella enteritidis/typhimurium vaccine. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2011; 124: 89-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Theuß T, Woitow G. Bulang. et al. Demonstration of the efficacy of a Salmonella Enteritidis live vaccine for chickens according to the current European Pharmacopoeia Monograph. Heliyon 2018; 4 (12) e01070 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e01070.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Trüpschuch S, Laverde Gomez JA, Ediberidze I. et al. Characterisation of multidrug resistant Salmonella Typhimurium 4,[5],12:i- DT193 strain carrying a novel genomic island adjacent to the thrW tRNA locus. Int J Med Microbiol Suppl 2010; 300: 279-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Methner U, Koch H, Meyer H. Model for experimental efficacy testing of control measures against Salmonella infections in poultry. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1995; 102 (06) 225-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sterzenbach T, Crawford RW, Winter SE. et al. Salmonella Virulence Mechanisms and their Genetic Basis. In: Barrow PA, Methner U. eds. Salmonella in Domestic Animals. Oxfordshire, Boston: CAB International; 2013: 86-87
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Eeckhaut V, Haesebrouck F, Ducatelle R. et al. Oral vaccination with a live Salmonella Enteritidis/Typhimurium bivalent vaccine in layers induces cross-protection against cecal and internal organ colonization by a Salmonella Infantis strain. Vet Microbiol 2018; 218: 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Methner U, Barrow PA, Berndt A. Induction of a homologous and heterologous invasion-inhibition effect after administration of Salmonella strains to newly hatched chicks. Vaccine 2010; 28: 6958-6963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Methner U, Haase A, Berndt A. et al. Exploitation of intestinal colonization-inhibition between salmonella organisms for live vaccines in poultry – potential and limitations. Zoonoses Public Health 2011; 58: 540-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martin G, Methner U, Steinbach G. et al. Immunization with potential Salmonella enteritidis mutants – 2. Investigations on the attenuation and immunogenicity for mice and young hens. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1996; 109 (10) 369-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Springer S, Lehmann J, Lindner T. et al. A new live Salmonella enteritidis vaccine for chickens – experimental evidence of its safety and efficacy. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2000; 113 (06) 246-252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Atterbury RJ, Carrique-Mas J, Davies RH. et al. Salmonella colonization of laying hens following vaccination with killed and live attenuated commercial Salmonella vaccines. Vet Rec 2009; 165 (17) 493-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nandre RM, Lee D, Lee JH. Cross-protection against Salmonella Typhimurium infection conferred by a live attenuated Salmonella Enteritidis vaccine. Can J Vet Res 2015; 79: 16-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Arnold E, Gosling RJ, La Ragione RM. et al. Estimation of the impact of vaccination on faecal shedding and organ and egg contamination for Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium and monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium. Avian Pathol 2014; 43 (02) 155-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Denagamage T, Jayarao B, Patterson P. et al. Risk factors associated with Salmonella in laying hen farms: systematic review of observational studies. Avian Dis 2015; 59 (02) 291-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar