Volume 1, 2012

avianinsight
Since its identification as an agent of poultry disease, efforts have been made to minimize the occurrence/ spread of MG. Within the meat-type turkey and broiler segments of the U.S. poultry industry, biosecurity and biosurveillance measures have been largely successful at controlling the occurrence of MG infections and while MG infections still occur, they are sporadic in nature.
By S. L. Branton and J.D. Evans

A LO H M A N N A N I M A L H E A LT H N E W S B R I E F

Mycoplasma gallisepticum: Control by Live Attenuated Vaccines

MG and MG infections within this species, commonly termed infectious sinusitis, are associated with swelling around the eye and respiratory disease. The severity of MG-related disease may be significantly enhanced by associated infections by other bacterial (e.g. Esherichia coli) or viral (e.g. Newcastle disease virus, infectious bronchitis virus) agents and result in chronic respiratory disease (CRD). Environmental factors (e.g. temperature, air quality) may also impact the severity of disease. It is important to note that following initial infection by MG, infected poultry remain MG carriers for life. MG Control Since its identification as an agent of poultry disease, efforts have been made to minimize the occurrence/ spread of MG. Within the meat-type turkey and broiler segments of the U.S. poultry industry, biosecurity and biosurveillance measures have been largely successful at controlling the occurrence of MG infections and while MG infections still occur, they are sporadic in nature. Significant effort has been made to maintain MG-free stock and biosurveillance programs such as those outlined in the NPIP (21) have been effective at identifying MG breaks and reducing further MG spread. Within different segments of the poultry industry, single age poultry production sites largely remain MGfree due to their all-in-all-out nature and the relatively short survivability of MG outside of the host. In contrast, multi-age production facilities are much more difficult to maintain MG-free. Facilities of this type are very common within the commercial table egg laying industry and increasingly so among broiler and turkey breeders. The increased risk of MG infection to these facilities lies in their immense size and their

Introduction ycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) is a pathogenic bacterial species infecting chickens and turkeys. MG infections among these poultry can lead to significant economic losses which are realized through increased mortality, carcass condemnation, associated medication costs and reduced egg production, hatchability, and feed efficiency. The pathogen exhibits worldwide distribution and MG infections have been documented in a variety of ock types. Although efforts to reduce the occurrence and impact of MG have demonstrated success, MG remains a top priority of poultry producers. Recent surveys (2009) by the Association of Veterinarians in Egg Production and American Association of Avian Pathologists and findings of the Agricultural Research Service/ National Institute of Food and Agriculture Animal Health Stakeholder Workshop (2010) have prioritized MG and MG-related disease among the top five issues facing todays poultry industry. In chickens, uncomplicated MG infections may be associated with relatively mild sinusitis, tracheitis, and airsacculilitis. Turkeys are more susceptible to

inside

Mycoplasma gallisepticum: Control by Live Attenuated Vaccines, p.1

Notes from the CEO, p.4

reduced ability to depopulate due to the increased economic implications of such an event. Once infected, these large multi-age facilities may remain as reservoirs of MG for the life of the complexes as replacement pullets originating from MG-free stock are constantly exposed to MG upon placement. Successful MG control at a multi-age facility based solely on application of strict biosecurity and biosurveillance protocols has been reported (9), but this seems more of the exception than the rule as MG is considered endemic within many multi-age commercial egg laying ocks. Typical MG control at multi-age facilities may include application of antibiotics, inactivated (bacterin-based) vaccines, or live attenuated vaccines (LAVs). Regarding antibiotics, these agents have proven largely ineffective at eliminating MG from infected ocks, though their application may reduce the economic impact of the infection. However, their use may be limited by associated medication costs and growing public sentiment against widespread antibiotic use. Inactivated vaccines have demonstrated protection against MG-associated losses and may be preferred to LAVs when the potential transmission (vertical or horizontal) of live MG would be problematic (e.g. broiler breeders). However, these vaccines must be administered manually and may require multiple vaccinations to achieve maximal protection (18). Live Attenuated Vaccine (LAVs) Today, LAVs are among the most common MG-control agents utilized, particularly within the commercial table egg laying industry. LAVs have demonstrated protection against airsacculitis, respiratory signs, egg production losses, and field strain transmission (horizontal and vertical), but protection afforded can vary according to the applied LAV. There are currently four commercially available LAVs within the United States: Poulvac Myco F, an F strain-derived vaccine marketed by Fort Dodge Animal Health; AviPro MG F, an F strain-derived vaccine marketed by Lohmann Animal Health; Mycovac-L, strain 6/85 marketed by Intervet/ Plough Animal Health; and Mycoplasma Gallisepticum Vaccine, strain ts-11 marketed by Merial Select.

The F strain-derived vaccines originate from a field isolate (F strain) characterized of typical virulence, but later described of only moderate virulence (17, 23, 26). The F strain was applied to egg layer vaccination programs and demonstrated partial protection against egg production losses associated with virulent MG challenges. The F strain colonized the respiratory tract and persisted in vaccinated layers (2, 12). F strain vaccination reduced MG challenge strain populations and demonstrated MG field strain displacement (13, 15). The strain induced a strong serological response and to some extent this response was dosedependent (5, 16, 22). However, the F strain was found to be pathogenic to turkeys (20). In 1988, an F strain derivative was licensed by the USDA. This original commercial F strain derivative was described as the most popular and economical when compared to other available MG vaccines (1, 8). More recently, a second F strain-derived LAV (AviPro MG F) has become available, but due to the relative novelty of this LAV, comparatively little information specific to this LAV is available. However, in a recently completed study in which the two commercially available F strain derivatives were applied via eye drop to layer pullets, both of the vaccines when applied at their manufacturers recommended dosage resulted in 100% seroconversion (SPA- and ELISA-assessed), 100% detectable in vivo LAV populations, and protected vaccinated hosts from airsacculitis following intracheal challenge with a virulent strain of MG (4). The Mycovac-L LAV (strain designation 6/85) was derived from a U.S. field isolate (10). The Mycoplasma Gallisepticum Vaccine (strain designation ts-11) was derived from an Australian field isolate strain which was chemically mutagenized and selected for temperature sensitive growth characteristics (25). Both LAVs are avirulent for chickens and turkeys and protected vaccinated chickens from airsacculitis associated with virulent MG challenge (1, 7, 25). These LAVs induce a mild serological response and do not persist in the respiratory tract (1). However, the extent of seroconversion and persistence within the host may be dependent on host strain, the route of application, and the applied dosage (3, 6). Generally, 6/85-

and ts-11-derived vaccines are considered less protective against virulent MG challenge than F strain-derived vaccines and the level of protection afforded by an LAV may be correlated to the virulence of the vaccine strain (20). Both the 6/85- and ts-11-derived vaccines offer less protection against virulent MG-associated airsacculitis as compared to an F strain-derived vaccine (1) and a 6/85-derived LAV was not as protective against egg production losses immediately following virulent MG challenge (7). Indicative of live vaccines, the LAVs are potentially transmissible and may be regulated on a state by state or case by case basis. The risk of transmission is of particular interest with the F strain-derived LAVs due to associated virulence to some poultry and an F strain-derived LAV has been associated with field outbreaks in turkey ocks (19, 20, 23). Transmission of the F strain has been demonstrated between pen mates and egg transmission also may occur (5, 12, 20). LAVs derived from MG strains 6/85 and ts11 have a lower potential for transmission as compared to F strain-derived LAVs (24). However, breaks involving possible derivatives of MG strain 6/85 and MG strain ts-11 have been reported (11, 14, 24). Current Research In lieu of the development of more effective means of control, LAVs will continue to be important instruments to protect poultry producers from losses associated with virulent MG field breaks, particularly within multi-age facilities. Today, these LAVs are being applied by a wide variety of routes including via spray, eye drop, and drinking water and the realized dosages or resulting vaccinal loads may vary widely impacting the protection afforded. With the spray application route alone, numerous devices are being utilized with varying degrees of efficiency. Toward maximizing the protection afforded by available LAVs, research is currently underway to determine the impact of various delivery systems and identify optimal conditions for LAV application.

References 1. Abd-el-Motelib, T. Y., and S. H. Kleven. 1993. Avian Dis. 37(4):981-987. 2. Branton, S. L., H. Gerlach, and S. H. Kleven. 1984. Poult Sci. 63:1917-9. 3. Collett, S. R., D. K. Thomson, D. York, and S. P. Bisschop. 2005. Avian Dis. 49:133-7. 4. Evans, J.D., S.A. Leigh, S.D. Collier, S.L. Branton. 2011. American Society of Microbiology General Meeting, May 22-24, New Orleans, LA. 5. Evans, J. D., S. L. Branton, and S. A. Leigh. 2009. Avian Dis. 53:416-20. 6. Evans, J. D., S. A. Leigh, S. L. Branton, and S. D. Collier. 2007. Avian Dis. 51:912-7. 7. Evans, R. D. and Y. S. Hafez. 1992. Avian Dis. 36:197-201. 8. Gingerich, E. 2002. Proceedings: Cornell Poultry Conference, Ithaca NY. June 19, 2002. 52(3), 2-5. 9. Halvorson, D. A. 2011. Avian Dis. 55:139-142. 10. Kleven, S. H. 2008. Avian Dis. 52:367-74. 11. Kleven, S. H. 2000. 49th Annual New England Poultry Health Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 12. Kleven, S. H. 1981. Avian Dis. 25:1005-18. 13. Kleven, S. H., H. H. Fan, and K. S. Turner. 1998. Avian Dis. 42:300-6. 14. Kleven, S. H., R. M. Fulton, M. Garcia, V. N. Ikuta, V. A. Leiting, T. Liu, D. H. Ley, K. N. Opengart, G. N. Rowland, and E. WallnerPendleton. 2004. Avian Dis. 48:562-569. 15. Levisohn, S. and M. J. Dykstra. 1987. Avian Dis. 31:1-12. 16. Levisohn, S. and S. H. Kleven. 1981. Isr J Med Sci. 17:669-73. 17. Levisohn, S., Y. Yegana, I. Hod, and A. Herz. 1983. Avian Pathol. 12:247-61. 18. Ley, D. H. 2008. In: Y. M. Saif et al. (eds.), Diseases of Poultry. P. 807-34. Blackwell

Publishing, Ames, Iowa. 19. Ley, D. H., A. P. Avakian, and J. E. Berkhoff. 1993. Avian Dis. 37:854-62. 20. Lin, M. Y. and S. H. Kleven. 1982. Avian Dis. 26:360-4. 21. National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provision. 2011. Chapter 9: Code of Federal Regulations (9CFR) USDAAPHIS-VS. 22. Roberts, D. H. 1969. J Appl Bacteriol. 32:395401. 23. Rodriguez, R. and S. H. Kleven. 1980. Avian Dis. 24:879-89. 24. Throne Steinlage, S. J., N. Ferguson, J. E. Sander, M. Garca, S. Subramanian, V. A. Leiting, and S. H. Kleven. 2003. Avian Dis. 47:499-505. 25. Whithear, K. G., Soeripto, K. E. Harringan, and E. Ghiocas. 1990. Aust Vet J. 67:159-65. 26. Yamamoto, R. and H. E. Adler. 1956. Am. J Vet Res. 17:538-42.

Notes from the CEO

2012 marks a turning point for Lohmann Animal Health International in Winslow, Maine. Long recognized as a leader in inactivated vaccines that are now widely used in broiler breeder and table egg laying ocks worldwide, we have now made the strategic decision to also increase our efforts in live vaccines. Weve broken ground on yet another expansion at our Winslow, Maine campus. This expansion will double our capacity for live, freeze-dried vaccines and also double our egg capacity. The $6 million project will help us fill the ever-increasing demands for Lohmann quality products globally.
Dave Zacek CEO, Lohmann Animal Health

Devoted to helping solve the problems associated with disease challenges in poultry meat and egg production birds, we are leaders in live Salmonella vaccines with AviPro Megan Vac and AviPro Megan Egg. We are now increasing our production capacity for AviPro MG F to aid us in meeting the demands for this unique vaccine. We thank our customers for your loyalty. We know we have a serious obligation to continue to devote our efforts to poultry vaccines, our only endeavor. Help us help you. Talk to our professional representatives today about how our products fit into your program, or go to our website at www.lahinternational.com and check out the entire line of Lohmann AviPro vaccines.

You are invited To visit us at the 2012 International Poultry Expo. When: Tuesday, January 24th through Thursday, January 26th Where: Booth 1953
Lohmann Animal Health International 375 China Road Winslow, Maine 04901, USA Phone: (+1) 207-873 3989

avianinsight

for more information:

(+1) 207-873 3989

(+1) 800-655 1342

www.lahinternational.com