Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1978 Mar;24(2):242-7.

The pathogenicity of four avian influenza viruses for fowls, turkeys and ducks

  • PMID: 653122
Comparative Study

The pathogenicity of four avian influenza viruses for fowls, turkeys and ducks

D J Alexander et al. Res Vet Sci. 1978 Mar.

Abstract

Groups of 10 two-week-old chicks, turkey poults and ducklings were each infected by the intranasal route with one of four avian influenza viruses: a/fowl/Germany/34 (Hav 1N))--Rostock, A/FPV/Dutch/27 (Hav 1 Neq 1)--Dutch, A/fowl/Victoria/75 (Hav 1 Neq 1)--Australian, and A/parrot/Ulster/73 (Hav 1 N1)--Ulster. Eight hours after infection 10 birds of the same age and species were placed in contact with each group and allowed to mix. The clinical signs of disease and onset of sickness and death were recorded. Ulster virus was completely avirulent for all birds. Rostock, Dutch and Australian viruses were virulent for fowls and turkeys causing death in all birds with the exception of 3/10 in contact fowls from the Rostock virus group and 2/10 in contact fowls from the Australian virus group. Only Rostock virus caused sicked sickness or death in ducks, 9/10 intranasally infected and 6/7 in contact birds showed clinical signs and 2/10 intranasally infected and 3/7 in contact ducks died. Intranasal and in contact pathogenicity indices were calculated for each virus in each bird species and indicated quantitatively the differences in virulence of the four virus strains. Virus isolation and immune response studies indicated that surviving in contact fowls in the Rostock virus group had never been infected but that surviving Australian virus in contact fowls had recovered from infection. Infection was not established in Ulster virus in contact fowls and Australian virus intranasally infected and in contact ducks. The birds in all other groups showed positive virus isolations and a high incidence of positive immune response. The last virus isolation was made at 22 days after intranasal infection of ducks with Ulster virus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

Substances