New Findings in Veterinary Microbiology

New Findings in Veterinary Microbiology

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Protocols and Combined Vaccination against Newcastle Disease, H9 Influenza and Gumboro Disease (IBD) in Broiler Chickens: Serological, Histopathological and Molecular Evaluation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of clinical science, Faculty of veterinary medicine, Karaj Islamic Azad university, Alborz Iran
3 Department of microbiology and immunology, Faculty of veterinary medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran-Iran
Abstract
Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD), Newcastle Disease (ND), and low-pathogenic Avian Influenza (H9) pose significant economic threats to the global poultry industry. Despite widespread vaccination efforts, outbreaks of highly virulent Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (vvIBDV) continue, leading to uncertainty about optimal vaccination strategies, especially regarding the synergistic effects of combined vaccines and the relative effectiveness of domestic versus international formulations. This study evaluated the humoral immune response and protective efficacy of different vaccination protocols, comparing international triple-inactivated vaccines (H9 + ND + IBD) with domestic formulations, administered with or without an additional live intermediate IBD vaccine. A total of 180 Ross-308 broiler chickens were divided into six experimental groups. Inactivated vaccines were administered on Day 8, followed by live intermediate Gumboro vaccination on Days 17 and 24 when applicable. All groups were challenged with vvIBDV on Day 35. Vaccine efficacy was assessed using ELISA and HI serology, viral load quantification in the bursa of Fabricius by RT-qPCR (Ct values), and histopathological evaluation of lymphoid depletion. The highest level of protection was observed in broilers receiving the international inactivated vaccine combined with a live intermediate vaccine, characterized by a strong humoral response (ELISA titer = 4153) and markedly reduced viral replication (Ct = 44.06). Notably, although the international inactivated vaccine alone provided substantial protection (ELISA titer = 4577), adding a live vaccine did not yield a statistically significant improvement (P > 0.05), suggesting that high-potency inactivated antigens may independently provide effective protection. Conversely, domestic Iranian vaccine formulations induced significantly lower immunogenicity and higher bursal lesion scores, revealing a pronounced efficacy gap compared to international products. These findings indicate that although combined live-inactivated vaccination strategies provide broad protection, the overall success of vvIBDV control programs is largely determined by the antigenic mass and the quality of the inactivated vaccine formulation. Enhancing the potency and consistency of domestic vaccines is therefore essential to achieve effective and sustainable control of vvIBDV in endemic regions.
Keywords
Subjects

1. Franciosini MP, Davidson I. A walk through Gumboro disease. Poultry. 2022;1(4):229-42.
2.Eterradossi N, Saif YM. Infectious bursal disease. Diseases of poultry. 2013:219-46.
3.Jackwood DJ, Sommer-Wagner S. Genetic characteristics of infectious bursal disease viruses from four continents. Virology. 2007;365(2):369-75.
4.Van den Berg H, Faulks R, Granado HF, Hirschberg J, Olmedilla B, Sandmann G, et al. The potential for the improvement of carotenoid levels in foods and the likely systemic effects. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2000;80(7):880-912.
5.Boudaoud A, Mamache B, Tombari W, Ghram A. Virus mutations and their impact on vaccination against infectious bursal disease. Rev Sci Tech. 2016;35(3):875-97.
6.Najafi H, Hosseini H, Kasaee M, Aghaiyan L, ZiafatiKafi Z, Hajizamani N, et al. Molecular characterization of a very virulent Infectious Bursal Disease Virus from Iran demonstrates its similarity with recent isolates from the Middle East. Iranian Journal of Virology. 2018;12(2):1-5.
7.Norouzian H, Farjanikish G, Hosseini H. Genetic and pathologic characteristics of infectious bursal disease viruses isolated from broiler chickens in Iran during 2014–2015. Acta Virol. 2017;61(2):191-6 [In Persian].
8.Alam J, Rahman M, Sil B, Khan M, Sarker M. Effect of maternally derived antibody on vaccination against infectious bursal disease with live vaccine in broiler. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2002;1(4):98-101.
9.De Wit J. Gumboro disease: estimation of optimal time of vaccination by the Deventer formula. Annual report and proceedings of COST Action. 2001;839:170-8.
10.Isihak FA, Ismail HK, Wahid AA. Comparison study between the efficacy of immune complex and conventionally live vaccine against Gumboro disease in broilers. 2021[In Persian].
11.Ebrahimi M, Yousefi A, Zaghari M, Bassami M. Comparison of the immunogenicity of four infectious bursal disease intermediate vaccines in commercial broiler flocks in Iran: A Field Trial Study. Archives of Razi Institute. 2020;75(2):205[In Persian].
12.Lasher H, Shane S. Infectious bursal disease. World's Poultry Science Journal. 1994;50(2):133-66.
13.Nagy A, Mettenleiter TC, Abdelwhab E. A brief summary of the epidemiology and genetic relatedness of avian influenza H9N2 virus in birds and mammals in the Middle East and North Africa. Epidemiology & Infection. 2017;145(16):3320-33.
14.Elfeil W, Abouelmaatti R, Diab M, Mandour M, Rady M. Experimental infection of chickens by avian influenza H9N2 virus: monitoring of tissue tropism and pathogenicity. J Egypt Vet Med Assoc. 2018;78(3):369-83.
15.Sultan HA, Talaat S, Elfeil WK, Selim K, Kutkat MA, Amer SA, et al. Protective efficacy of the Newcastle disease virus genotype VII-matched vaccine in commercial layers. Poult Sci. 2020;99(3):1275-86.
16.Kilany WH, Ali A, Bazid AH, El-Deeb AH, El-Abideen MA, Sayed ME, et al. A Dose-Response Study of Inactivated Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza H9N2 Virus in Specific-Pathogen-Free and Commercial Broiler Chickens. Avian Dis. 2016;60(1 Suppl):256-61.
17.Younis Z, Isihak F. Immunological assessment and homogeneity of commercial inactivated bivalent Newcastle and avian influenza H9N2 vaccines in broilers. Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2025;39(3):501-10.
18.Shaukat T, Muneer M, Ahmad M, Maqbool A, Shaukat T. Efficacy of avian influenza virus locally manufactured and imported vaccines. 2016.
19.Sun Y, Pu J, Fan L, Sun H, Wang J, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of the protective efficacy of a commercial vaccine against different antigenic groups of H9N2 influenza viruses in chickens. Veterinary microbiology. 2012;156(1-2):193-9.
20.Pan X, Su X, Ding P, Zhao J, Cui H, Yan D, et al. Maternal-derived antibodies hinder the antibody response to H9N2 AIV inactivated vaccine in the field. Animal Diseases. 2022;2(1):9.
Volume 9, Issue 1
Spring 2026
Pages 1-17

  • Receive Date 18 December 2025
  • Revise Date 16 April 2026
  • Accept Date 16 April 2026