Fowl adenovirus-induced diseases and strategies for their control – a review on the current global situation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Global distribution map of IBH and HHS according to outbreaks reported in published literature and based on information from the field made available through personal communication, supported by diagnostic investigations. Countries with prevalence of IBH are marked in red, hachures indicate countries from which HHS has been reported.

Table 1. Vaccination studies for the control of FAdV-induced disease complexes.

Vaccine type	Preparation/ formulation	FAdV strain	Assessment of vaccine response	Protection (% survival rate)	Reference
Inactivated vaccine	Formalinized (0.5%) liver homogenate extract	FAdV from an HHS field outbreak, n.c.^a	Challenge test: homologous virus	80% (vs. 0% in challenge control group)	Chishti et al. (1989)
Inactivated vaccine	Formalinized (0.1%) liver homogenates	FAdV field strains, n.c.	Field testing	Prophylactic administration: 98.92% (vs. 89.73% in unvaccinated birds); administration during an outbreak: 97.67% (vs. 89.32% in unvaccinated birds)	Afzal and Ahmad (1990)
Inactivated vaccine	Formalinized (0.1%, 0.5%) liver homogenates	K31/89 (FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS field outbreak)	Challenge test: homologous virus	≥85% (vs. 25–60% in challenge control groups)^b	Anjum (1990)
Inactivated vaccine	Cell cultured and egg-passaged formalinized virus	PARC-1 (FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS field outbreak)	Serological response: AGPT; challenge test: homologous virus	100% (vs. 30% in challenge control groups)	Naeem et al. (1995b)
Inactivated vaccine Live vaccine	Cell cultured formalinized (0.01%) virus Cell culture propagated virus, orally administered	PL-1 (FAdV isolated from an IBH field outbreak)	Serological response: neutralization test in embryonated eggs; challenge test: homologous virus	n.i.^c^,^d	Kaur et al. (1997)
Inactivated vaccine	Formalinized, oil-emulsified virus	FAdV isolated from an HHS field outbreak, n.c.	Serological response: IHA; challenge test: homologous virus	100% (vs. 0% in challenge control group)	Zia et al. (2001)
Commercial inactivated vaccine	Cell cultured inactivated, oil-emulsified virus	FAdV-4	Serological response in vaccinated breeders: SNT; challenge test in progenies: FAdV-4 field isolate	86.7% (vs. 73.3% in challenge control group)	Toro et al. (2002)
Commercial inactivated dual-serotype vaccine	Inactivated virus	1047 (FAdV-11) + 8565 (FAdV-8a) isolated from IBH field outbreaks	Serological response: maternal antibody measurement by ELISA based on strain 8565; challenge test in progenies: homologous strains and FAdV-8b	≥98% (vs. 0% in challenge control groups) for challenge with FAdV-8b^d; ≥92% for challenge with homologous strains^d^,^e	Alvarado et al. (2007)
Live vaccine	Chicken embryo-adapted vaccine, orally administered	FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS field outbreak	Serological response: whole-virus-based ELISA with the homologous strain; challenge test: homologous virus	94.74% (vs. 30% in challenge control group)	Mansoor et al. (2011)
Live vaccine	In vitro attenuated vaccine, produced on QT35 cells, orally administered	INT4 (FAdV-4)	Challenge test: virulent progenitor virus AG234	100% (vs. 34.5% and 46.2% in challenge control groups)^d	Schonewille et al. (2010)
Passive immunization	Passive immunization by IgY from egg yolk	FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS field outbreak	Challenge test: homologous virus	86.67% (vs. 33.34% in challenge control group)	Rani et al. (2012)
Subunit vaccine	Recombinant penton base protein, expressed in E. coli	FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS outbreak (HE653773)	Serological response: recombinant penton base ELISA; challenge test: homologous virus	90% (vs. 10% in challenge control group)	Shah et al. (2012)
Inactivated vaccine	Formalinized (0.2%), oil-adjuvanted virus	FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS field outbreak (HQ697593)	Serological response: AGPT, commercial ELISA; challenge test in vaccinated and progeny chickens: homologous and serotype-heterologous viruses	Significant differences in survival rates in homologously and heterologously challenged vaccinated, as well as progeny chickens in comparison to challenge control groups	Kim et al. (2014)
Subunit vaccine	Recombinant fiber-1, fiber-2 and hexon loop-1 proteins, expressed in a baculovirus system	FAdV-4 reference strain KR5	Serological response: recombinant fiber-based ELISA, SNT; challenge test: virulent FAdV-4 field isolate	Fiber-1: 62% Fiber-2: 96% Hexon loop-1: 27% (vs. 22% in challenge control group)	Schachner et al. (2014)
Inactivated vaccine Subunit vaccine	Heat- and formalin (0.1%) treated virus PCEP adjuvanted recombinant hexon protein expressed in E. coli	IBHV(SK) (FAdV-8b isolated from an IBH outbreak) (JN112373)	Serological response: ELISA based on inactivated homologous whole virus	n.d.^f	Dar et al. (2015)
Inactivated vaccine	Binary ethyleneimine (BEI)-inactivated, oil-adjuvanted virus	FAdV-2 isolated from an IBH outbreak	Serological response: recombinant hexon-based ELISA, SNT; challenge test in embryonic eggs and progeny: homologous virus	90% (embryonic eggs), 100% (progeny of vaccinated broilers)^e	Junnu et al. (2015)
Subunit vaccine	Recombinant 100K, expressed in E. coli	FAdV-4 isolated from an HHS outbreak	Serological response: recombinant 100K ELISA challenge test: homologous virus	40% (vs. 10% in challenge control group)	Shah et al. (2016)
Inactivated vaccine	Heat- and formalin (0.1%) treated virus, PCEP adjuvanted, in ovo administered	IBHV(SK) (FAdV-8b isolated from an IBH outbreak) (JN112373)	Serological response: ELISA based on inactivated homologous whole virus; cytokine expression analysis from spleen cells	n.d.	Sarfraz et al. (2017)
Virus-like particles (VLPs) subunit vaccine	2× vaccination with: empty viral capsids, separated by CsCl gradient centrifugation or recombinant fiber and fiber knob proteins expressed in E. coli	IBHV(SK) (FAdV-8b isolated from an IBH outbreak) (JN112373)	Serological response: SNT; cellular immune response: flow cytometry; challenge test in progeny: homologous virus	100% in VLPs-vaccinated, 82.7% in fiber-vaccinated, ∼55% in fiber-knob-vaccinated birds (vs. ∼50% in challenge control group)	Gupta et al. (2017)

^an.c., not characterized.

^bResults summarized if more than one experiment was conducted.

^cn.i., not indicated.

^dPost-challenge sequential killing of birds was additionally performed.

^eNo values reported for challenge control group.

^fn.d., not done.

Chishti, M.A., Afzal, M. & Cheema, A.H. (1989). Preliminary studies on the development of vaccine against the “hydropericardium syndrome” of poultry. Revue Scientifique et Technique de ĺOffice International des Epizooties, 8, 797–801. doi: 10.20506/rst.8.3.432

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Afzal, M. & Ahmad, I. (1990). Efficacy of an inactivated vaccine against hydropericardium syndrome in broilers. The Veterinary Record, 126, 59–60.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anjum, A.D. (1990). Experimental transmission of hydropericardium syndrome and protection against it in commercial broiler chickens. Avian Pathology, 19, 655–660. doi: 10.1080/03079459008418721

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Naeem, K., Rabbani, M., Hussain, M. & Cheema, A.H. (1995b). Development of cell culture vaccine against hydropericardium syndrome in poultry. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 15, 150–151.

 Google Scholar

Kaur, A., Oberoi, M.S. & Singh, A. (1997). Neutralising antibody and challenge response to live and inactivated avian adenovirus-1 in broilers. Tropical Animal Health And Production, 29, 141–146. doi: 10.1007/BF02633009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zia, M.R., Rahman, S.U., Siddique, M. & Sandhu, M.A. (2001). Comparative efficiency of two oil emulsion-hydropericardium/hepatitis syndrome vaccines. International Journal of Agricultural Biology, 3, 436–438.

 Google Scholar

Toro, H., González, C., Cerda, L., Morales, M.A., Dooner, P. & Salamero, M. (2002). Prevention of inclusion body hepatitis/hydropericardium syndrome in progeny chickens by vaccination of breeders with fowl adenovirus and chicken anemia virus. Avian Diseases, 46, 547–554. doi: 10.1637/0005-2086(2002)046[0547:POIBHH]2.0.CO;2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alvarado, I.R., Villegas, P., El-Attrache, J., Jensen, E., Rosales, G., Perozo, F. & Purvis, L.B. (2007). Genetic characterization, pathogenicity, and protection studies with an avian adenovirus isolate associated with inclusion body hepatitis. Avian Diseases, 51, 27–32. doi: 10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0027:GCPAPS]2.0.CO;2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mansoor, M.K., Hussain, I., Arshad, M. & Muhammad, G. (2011). Preparation and evaluation of chicken embryo-adapted fowl adenovirus serotype 4 vaccine in broiler chickens. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43, 331–338. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9694-z

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schonewille, E., Jaspers, R., Paul, G. & Hess, M. (2010). Specific-pathogen-free chickens vaccinated with a live FAdV-4 vaccine are fully protected against a severe challenge even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. Avian Diseases, 54, 905–910. doi: 10.1637/8999-072309-Reg.1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rani, V., Kumar, R., Upadhyay, A.K. & Kumar, M. (2012). Therapeutic efficacy of chicken egg yolk immunoglobulins against hydropericardium syndrome in broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 82, 552–556.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, M.S., Ashraf, A., Rahman, M., Khan, M.I. & Qureshi, J.A. (2012). A subunit vaccine against hydropericardium syndrome using adenovirus penton capsid protein. Vaccine, 30, 7153–7156. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.10.013

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, M.-S., Lim, T.-H., Lee, D.-H., Youn, H.-N., Yuk, S.-S., Kim, B.-Y., Choi, S.-W., Jung, C.-H., Han, J.-H. & Song, C.-S. (2014). An inactivated oil-emulsion fowl Adenovirus serotype 4 vaccine provides broad cross-protection against various serotypes of fowl Adenovirus. Vaccine, 32, 3564–3568. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.03.015

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schachner, A., Marek, A., Jaskulska, B., Bilic, I. & Hess, M. (2014). Recombinant FAdV-4 fiber-2 protein protects chickens against hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS). Vaccine, 32, 1086–1092. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.056

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dar, A., Tipu, M., Townsend, H., Potter, A., Gerdts, V. & Tikoo, S. (2015). Administration of poly[di(sodium carboxylatoethylphenoxy)phosphazene] (PCEP) and avian beta defensin as adjuvants in inactivated inclusion body hepatitis virus and its hexon protein-based experimental vaccine formulations in chickens. Avian Diseases, 59, 518–524. doi: 10.1637/11202-052815-Reg.1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Junnu, S., Lertwatcharasarakul, P., Jala, S., Phattanakulanan, S., Monkong, A., Kulprasertsri, S., Thivalai, C., Chakritbudsabong, W., Chaichoun, K. & Songserm, T. (2015). An inactivated vaccine for prevention and control of inclusion body hepatitis in broiler breeders. The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 45, 55–62.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, M.S., Ashraf, A., Khan, M.I., Rahman, M., Habib, M. & Qureshi, J.A. (2016). Molecular cloning, expression and characterization of 100 K gene of fowl adenovirus-4 for prevention and control of hydropericardium syndrome. Biologicals, 44, 19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2015.10.002

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarfraz, M., Suleman, M., Tikoo, S.K., Wheler, C., Potter, A.A., Gerdts, V. & Dar, A. (2017). Immune responses to in ovo vaccine formulations containing inactivated fowl adenovirus 8b with poly[di(sodium carboxylatoethylphenoxy)]phosphazene (PCEP) and avian beta defensin as adjuvants in chickens. Vaccine, 35, 981–986. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.023

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gupta, A., Ahmed, K.A., Ayalew, L.E., Popowich, S., Kurukulasuriya, S., Goonewardene, K., Gunawardana, T., Karunarathna, R., Ojkic, D., Tikoo, S.K., Willson, P. & Gomis, S. (2017). Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of virus-like particles and recombinant fiber proteins in broiler-breeder vaccination against fowl adenovirus (FAdV)-8b. Vaccine, 35, 2716–2722. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.075

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar