Journal of Infectious Diseases & Therapy
Open Access

Experimental Study on the Effect of Different Routes of Administration on the Immunogenicity of Live Infectious Bursal Disease Vaccine

Guta Wakjira Adino^*

Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia

Received Date: Jan 25, 2023 / Published Date: May 05, 2023

Citation: Adino GW (2023) Experimental Study on the Effect of Different Routes of Administration on the Immunogenicity of Live Infectious Bursal Disease Vaccine. J Infect Dis Ther 11: 552.

Copyright: © 2023 Adino GW. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

To read the full article Peer-reviewed Article PDF | Peer-reviewed Full Article

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.