Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 429–434 | Cite as

Impact of crossing Fayoumi and Leghorn chicken breeds on immune response against Newcastle disease virus vaccines

  • Mahmoud S. El-TarabanyEmail author
Regular Articles


This study was conducted to evaluate the immune response against Newcastle disease (ND) virus vaccines (live attenuated and inactivated) in purebred Lohman Selected Leghorn (LSL), Fayoumi, male Fayomi × female LSL (FL crossbred), male LSL × female Fayomi (LF reciprocal crossbred) chickens. One-hundred-day-old chicks of each genetic type were assigned to five equal replicates. The log geometric means of the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers were calculated. The FL crossbred chickens had a significantly higher HI antibody titer at day 26 of age when compared with the LSL chickens (P = 0.039). The Fayoumi and FL crossbred chickens had significantly higher HI antibody titers at day 45 of age (2.35 and 2.23, respectively) when compared with the LSL chickens (P = 0.031). In the same way, the purebred Fayoumi and FL crossbred chickens had significantly higher HI antibody titers at 60 and 75 days of age (P = 0.009 and 0.041, respectively) when compared with the purebred LSL and LF crossbred chickens. The LSL chickens showed a significantly higher (P < 0.05) correlation estimate between HI titer to the ND vaccine on day 75 of age and body weight at week 12 of age. When challenged with the virulent ND virus, the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality rates in purebred LSL and LF crossbred chickens were significantly (HR = 3.52 and 2.07; P = 0.001 and 0.049, respectively) higher than the Fayoumi chickens. In conclusion, purebred Fayoumi and FL crossbred chickens showed superior antibody titers against live attenuated and inactivated ND virus vaccines. Hence, Fayoumi breed may be incorporated in the crossbreeding programs to improve the genetic resistance to ND.


Newcastle disease Crossbreeding Fayoumi Leghorn Immunity 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

The experimental procedures of the current research were in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee of Animal Wealth Development Department, Zagazig University, Egypt.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. Al-Garib, S.O., Gielkens, A.L.J., Gruys, E. and Koch, G., 2003. Review of Newcastle disease virus with particular references to immunity and vaccination. World Poultry Science, 59, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Zubeedy, A.Z., 2009. Evaluation of Two Different Vaccination Programs Against Newcastle Disease in Nineveh Province. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8, 2228–2231.Google Scholar
  3. Baelmans, R., Parmentier, H.K., Dorny, P., Demey, F. and Berkvens, D., 2006. Reciprocal antibody and complement responses of two chicken breeds to vaccine strains of Newcastle disease virus, infectious Bursal disease virus and infectious bronchitis virus. Veterinary Research Communications, 30, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balat, M.M., Nadia, A.E., Gad, H.A., El-Naggar, N.M. and Elham, M.A., 1993. Heritability estimates and genetic relationship among some economic traits in the new turkey strain “Mehallah 85”. Egyptian Poultry Science, V(13), 175–198.Google Scholar
  5. Beared, C.W., 1989. Serological procedures. In isolation and identification of avian pathogen (third edition) PP. 193. Edited by the American Association of Avian pathologists.Google Scholar
  6. Chimeno Zoth, S., Gomez, E., Carrillo, E. and Berinstein, A., 2008. Locally produced mucosal IgG in chickens immunized with conventional vaccines for Newcastle disease virus. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 41, 318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunnington, E.A., Briles, W.E., Briles, R.W. and Siegel, P.B., 1996. Immunoresponsivness in chickens: Association of antibody production and the B system of the major histocompatibility complex. Poultry Science, 75, 1156–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El Sayed, M.S., Ahmed, A.S. and Alyousef, Y.M., 2016. Characterization of Newcastle disease antibody response and some related performance indicators of two local Saudi chicken lines and two cross lines during the rearing period. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26, 1236–1241.Google Scholar
  9. Emam, M., Mehrabani-Yeganeh, H., Barjesteh, N., Nikbakht, G., Thompson-Crispi, K., Charkhkar, S. and Mallard, B., 2013. The influence of genetic background versus commercial breeding programs on chicken immunocompetence. Poultry science, 93, 77–84. S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hassan, M.K., Afifi, M. and Aly, M.M., 2002. Susceptibility of vaccinated and unvaccinated Egyptian chickens to very virulent infectious bursal disease. Avian Pathology, 31, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hassan, M.K., Afify, M.A. and Aly, M.M., 2004. Genetic resistance of Egyptian chickens to infectious Bursal disease and Newcastle disease. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 36, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heller, D., Soller, M., Peleg, B.A., Ron-Kuper, N. and Hornstein, K., 1981. Immune response to Newcastle disease virus vaccine, fowl-pox vaccine and Escherichia coli vaccine in Bedouin and White Leghorn chickens. Poultry Science, 60, 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hitchner, S.B., Domermuth, C.H., Purchase, H.G. and Williams, J.E., 1980. Isolation and identification of avian pathogens. American Association of Avian Pathologists. Creative printing Company. Inc. Endwell, NY, USA. Pp. 155.Google Scholar
  14. Liu, T., Qu, H., Luo, C., Li, X., Shu, D., Lund, M.S. and Su, G., 2014. Genomic selection for the improvement of antibody response to Newcastle disease and avian influenza virus in chickens. PloS one, 9, e112685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinez, J.C.S., Chou, W.K., Berghman, L.R. and Carey, J.B., 2018. Evaluation of the effect of live LaSota Newcastle disease virus vaccine as primary immunization on immune development in broilers. Poultry Science, 97, 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, P.J., Estevez, C., Yu, Q., Suarez, D.L. and King, D.J., 2009. Comparison of viral shedding following vaccination with inactivated and live Newcastle disease vaccines formulated with wild-type and recombinant viruses. Avian Diseases, 53, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nayak, B., Rout, S.N., Kumar, S., Khalil, M.S., Fouda, M.M. and Ahmed, L.E., et al. 2009. Immunization of Chickens with Newcastle Disease Virus Expressing H5 Hemagglutinin Protects against Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza Viruses. PLoS ONE, 4, e6509.Google Scholar
  18. Paulillo, A.C., Franzo, V.S., dos Santos, Schmidt E.M. and Junior, L.D., 2009. Response to experimental vaccination against Newcastle disease in domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos): Clinical and Immunological Parameters. International Journal of Poultry Science, 8, 963–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richard, A.Y., Mirabeau, T.Y., Tony, O.I., Solomon, C.C., Samsom, E.S. and Ayodeji, O.O., 2014. Evaluation of the efficacy of Newcastle disease (Lasota) live vaccines sold in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 10, 132–141.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, T.R., Dunnington, E.A. and Siegel, P.B., 1994. Brucella aborts antibody response of White Leghorn chicken Selected for high and low antibody responsiveness to sheep erythrocytes. Poultry Science, 73, 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Senne, D.S., 1989. Virus propagation in embryonating eggs, in isolation and identification of avian pathogens, third Edition. American Association of avian pathologists. Creative printing Company. Inc. Endwell, NY, USA. Pp. 176–181.Google Scholar
  22. Senne, D.A., King, D.J. and Kapczynski, D.R., 2004. Control of Newcastle disease by vaccination. Developmental Biology, 119, 165–170.Google Scholar
  23. Snoeijs, T., Eens, M., Van Den Steen, E. and Pinxten, R., 2007. Kinetics of primary antibody responses to sheep red blood cells in birds: a literature review and new data from great tits and European starlings. Animal Biology, 57, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Villegas, P., 1991. Newcastle disease virus titration. In: Avian virology (AM 805) laboratory manual. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, G.A. Pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
  25. Viney, M.E., Riley, E.M. and Buchanan, K.L., 2005. Optimal immune responses: immunocompetence revisited. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 665–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yamane, T., 1973. Statistics-An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed., Haper and Row Press, New York, USA. p. 45.Google Scholar
  27. Yunis, R., Ben-David, A., Heller, E.D. and Cahaner, A., 2000. Immunocompetence and viability under commercial conditions of broiler groups differing in growth rate and in antibody response to Escherichia coli vaccine. Poultry Science, 79, 810–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yunis, R., Ben-David, A., Heller, E.D. and Cahaner, A., 2002. Genetic and Phenotypic correlations between antibody response to Escherichia coli, infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV), in broiler lines selected for antibody response to Escherichia coli. Poultry Science, 81, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt

Personalised recommendations