The objective of this research was to determine whether variation in the presence of fimbrial protein SefD would impact efficacy of bacterins as measured by recovery of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (Salmonella Enteritidis) from the spleens of hens. Two bacterins were prepared that varied in SefD content. Also, two adjuvants were tested, namely, water-in-oil and aluminum hydroxide gel (alum). Control groups for both adjuvant preparations included infected nonvaccinated hens and uninfected nonvaccinated hens. At 21 days postinfection, Salmonella Enteritidis was recovered from 69.7%, 53.1%, and 86.0% from the spleens of all hens vaccinated with bacterins lacking SefD, bacterins that included SefD, and infected nonvaccinated control hens, respectively. No Salmonella was recovered from uninfected nonvaccinates. Results from individual trials showed that both bacterins reduced positive spleens, but that the one with SefD was more efficacious. Alum adjuvant had fewer side effects on hens and egg production as compared to water-in-oil. However, adjuvant did not change the relative recovery of Salmonella Enteritidis from spleens. These results suggest that SefD is a promising target antigen for improving the efficacy of immunotherapy in hens, and is intended to reduce Salmonella Enteritidis in the food supply.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdriaensenC, De GreveH, TianJQ, et al.A live Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis vaccine allows serological differentiation between vaccinated and infected animals. Infect Immun, 2007; 75:2461–2468.
2.
BerghausRD, ThayerSG, MaurerJJ, HofacreCL. Effect of vaccinating breeder chickens with a killed Salmonella vaccine on Salmonella prevalences and loads in breeder and broiler chicken flocks. J Food Prot, 2011; 74:727–734.
3.
[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of Salmonella serotype enteritidis infection associated with eating shell eggs—United States, 1999–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2003; 51:1149–1152.
4.
CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—Foodborne diseases active surveillance network. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep, 2011; 60:749–755.
5.
CDC. Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—Foodborne diseases active surveillance network, 10 U.S. sites, 2006–2012. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep, 2014; 63:328–332.
6.
ClouthierSC, CollinsonSK, KayWW. Unique fimbriae-like structures encoded by sefD of the SEF14 fimbrial gene cluster of Salmonella enteritidis. Mol Microbiol, 1994; 12:893–901.
7.
ClouthierSC, MullerKH, DoranJL, CollinsonSK, KayWW. Characterization of three fimbrial genes, sefABC, of Salmonella enteritidis. J Bacteriol, 1993; 175:2523–2533.
8.
CollinsonSK, EmodyL, MullerKH, TrustTJ, KayWW. Purification and characterization of thin, aggregative fimbriae from Salmonella enteritidis. J Bacteriol, 1991; 173:4773–4781.
9.
CowdenJM, ChisholmD, O'MahonyM, et al.Two outbreaks of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 infection associated with the consumption of fresh shell-egg products. Epidemiol Infect, 1989; 103:47–52.
10.
De CortW, GeeraertsS, BalanV, et al.A Salmonella Enteritidis hilAssrAfliG deletion mutant is a safe live vaccine strain that confers protection against colonization by Salmonella Enteritidis in broilers. Vaccine, 2013; 31:5104–5110.
11.
EdwardsRA, MatlockBC, HeffernanBJ, MaloySR. Genomic analysis and growth-phase-dependent regulation of the SEF14 fimbriae of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis. Microbiology, 2001; 147:2705–2715.
12.
EdwardsRA, SchifferliDM, MaloySR. A role for Salmonella fimbriae in intraperitoneal infections. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000; 97:1258–1262.
13.
ElsonR, LittleCL, MitchellRT. Salmonella and raw shell eggs: Results of a cross-sectional study of contamination rates and egg safety practices in the United Kingdom catering sector in 2003. J Food Prot, 2005; 68:256–264.
14.
[FDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Egg Safety Final Rule: Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in shell eggs during production, storage, and transportation. In: Federal Register, Volume 21 CFR Parts 16 and 118. Federal Register: Health and Human Services (HHS), 2009, pp. 33030–33101
15.
FDA. Production, storage, and transportation of shell eggs. In: 21CFR118. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (ed.). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2014, 27 pp
16.
FialhoF, LedurM, AvilaV. Mathematical model to compare egg production curves. Rev Bras Ciência Avícol, 2001; 3:211–217.
17.
GastRK. Serotype-specific and serotype-independent strategies for preharvest control of food-borne Salmonella in poultry. Avian Dis, 2007; 51:817–828.
18.
GastRK, StoneHD, HoltPS. Evaluation of the efficacy of oil-emulsion bacterins for reducing fecal shedding of Salmonella enteritidis by laying hens. Avian Dis, 1993; 37:1085–1091.
19.
GuardJ, GastRK, GurayaR. Colonization of avian reproductive-tract tissues by variant subpopulations of Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis, 2010; 54:857–861.
20.
GuardJ, MoralesCA, Fedorka-CrayP, GastRK. Single nucleotide polymorphisms that differentiate two subpopulations of Salmonella enteritidis within phage type. BMC Res Notes, 2011; 4:369.
21.
GuardJ, Sanchez-IngunzaR, MoralesC, et al.Comparison of dkgB-linked intergenic sequence ribotyping to DNA microarray hybridization for assigning serotype to Salmonella enterica. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 2012; 337:61–72.
22.
Guard-PetterJ. Variants of smooth Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis that grow to higher cell density than the wild type are more virulent. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1998; 64:2166–2172.
23.
HassanJO, CurtissR3rd.Effect of vaccination of hens with an avirulent strain of Salmonella typhimurium on immunity of progeny challenged with wild-type Salmonella strains. Infect Immun, 1996; 64:938–944.
24.
HassanJO, CurtissR3rd.Efficacy of a live avirulent Salmonella typhimurium vaccine in preventing colonization and invasion of laying hens by Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis, 1997; 41:783–791.
25.
KindeH, ReadDH, ChinRP, et al.Salmonella enteritidis, phase type 4 infection in a commercial layer flock in southern California: Bacteriologic and epidemiologic findings. Avian Dis, 1996; 40:665–671.
26.
LaemmliUK, BeguinF, Gujer-KellenbergerG. A factor preventing the major hard protein of bacteriophage T4 from random aggregation. J Mol Biol, 1970; 47:69–85.
27.
LopesVC, VelayudhanBT, HalvorsonDA, NagarajaKV. Preliminary evaluation of the use of the sefA fimbrial gene to elicit immune response against Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis in chickens. Avian Dis, 2006; 50:185–190.
28.
MatulovaM, HavlickovaH, SisakF, RychlikI. Vaccination of chickens with Salmonella Pathogenicity Island (SPI) 1 and SPI2 defective mutants of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis. Vaccine, 2012; 30:2090–2097.
29.
McClellandM, SandersonKE, SpiethJ, et al.Complete genome sequence of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2. Nature, 2001; 413:852–856.
30.
MilesAP, SaulA. Extraction and characterization of vaccine antigens from water-in-oil adjuvant formulations. In: Therapeutic Proteins: Methods and Protocols. SmalesCM and JamesDC (eds.). New York: Humana Press, 2005, pp. 293–300
31.
MoralesCA, GuardJ, Sanchez-IngunzaR, ShahDH, HarrisonM. Virulence and metabolic characteristics of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis strains with different sefD variants in hens. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2012; 78:6405–6412.
32.
Moreno-PazM, GomezMJ, ArcasA, ParroV. Environmental transcriptome analysis reveals physiological differences between biofilm and planktonic modes of life of the iron oxidizing bacteria Leptospirillum spp. in their natural microbial community. BMC Genomics, 2010; 11:404.
33.
NandreRM, ChaudhariAA, MatsudaK, LeeJH. Immunogenicity of a Salmonella Enteritidis mutant as vaccine candidate and its protective efficacy against salmonellosis in chickens. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 2013; 144:299–311.
34.
NassarTJ, al-NakhliHM, al-OgailyZH. Use of live and inactivated Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 vaccines to immunise laying hens against experimental infection. Rev Sci Tech, 1994; 13:855–867.
35.
NextAdvance.. Protocol for E. coli Cultures Homogenization in the Bullet Blender®. Available at: http://nextadvance.com/public/file/protocols/Bullet_Blender_Homogenizer_Protocol_Homogenization_E_Coli.pdf: NextAdvance, 2013, accessed July7, 2013.
36.
Penha FilhoRA, MouraBS, de AlmeidaAM, MontassierHJ, BarrowPA, Berchieri JuniorA. Humoral and cellular immune response generated by different vaccine programs before and after Salmonella Enteritidis challenge in chickens. Vaccine, 2012; 30:7637–7643.
37.
PiteskyM, CharltonB, BlandM, RolfeD. Surveillance of Salmonella enteritidis in layer houses: A retrospective comparison of the Food and Drug Administration's egg safety rule (2010–2011) and the California Egg Quality Assurance Program (2007–2011). Avian Dis, 2013; 57:51–56.
38.
RajashekaraG, MunirS, AlexeyevMF, HalvorsonDA, WellsCL, NagarajaKV. Pathogenic role of SEF14, SEF17, and SEF21 fimbriae in Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis infection of chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2000; 66:1759–1763.
39.
VielitzE, ConradC, VossM, LohrenU, BachmeierJ, HahnI. Immunizing against Salmonella infections with live and inactivated vaccines. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 1992; 99:483–485. (In German.)
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
