|
|
||||||||
ENVIRONMENT, WELL-BEING, AND BEHAVIOR |
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit, Athens, Georgia 30605
1 Corresponding author: rmoore{at}seprl.usda.gov
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: Salmonella enteritidis molting invasion
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Feed deprivation is the most commonly used method by the United States layer industry to induce molting and stimulate multiple egg-laying cycles in aging hens (Bell, 1987). In 1987, an estimated 60% of laying flocks nationally were recycled (Bell, 1987). However, research has demonstrated that feed removal during forced molt decreases the resistance of hens to SE infection (Holt, 1993; Durant et al., 1999), resulting in increased severity of infection (Holt and Porter, 1992a; Porter and Holt, 1993), increased intestinal shedding of SE (Holt and Porter, 1992a, 1993), and increased horizontal spread of infection to molted hens in neighboring cages (Holt and Porter, 1992b, 1993; Holt, 1995).
The resultant risk of SE-positive eggs appears to increase 3-fold in molted flocks during the first 10 wk after molt (USDA, 1989). Sixty percent of the approximately 300 million hens nationwide are force-molted (Bell, 1987), placing approximately 180 million hens at increased risk of SE colonization.
Physiologically, induced molting through feed withdrawal has numerous effects on the bird including a decline in body weight and a size reduction in the ovaries, oviduct, liver, and intestines. Effects on the immune system have also been suggested. The following study was performed to further investigate the mechanism of the increased susceptibility of molting hens to SE infection and to determine if tissues from feed-deprived hens can be more readily infiltrated by SE than tissues from full-fed hens in vitro.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Bacterial Preparation and Inoculation
A primary poultry isolate of SE (phage type 13, USDA, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa) selected for resistance to novobiocin (NO) and nalidixic acid (NA) and sensitivity to gentamicin sulfate (GS) was grown overnight in tryptic soy broth. Cell suspensions were washed twice and diluted in PBS to 109 cfu of SE/mL. Final dilutions of SE were made with RPMI medium. Using a syringe with a 25-gauge needle, 107 to 108 cfu of SE/mL was inoculated into the lumen of the crops (1.5 mL/crop), ilea (0.5 mL/ileum), and ceca (0.5 mL/cecum). Ovaries were placed in 50 mL of RPMI containing 106 to 107 cfu of SE/mL. All tissues were incubated in 50 mL of RPMI medium (6 tissues/50 mL of RPMI) with 5% CO2 at 37°C for 2 h to allow for bacterial penetration of tissues. Crop, ileum, and cecum were inoculated with 107 cfu of SE in trials 1 and 2 and 108 cfu of SE in trial 3. Ovaries were inoculated with 107 in trials 1 and 2 and 106 cfu of SE in trial 3.
Detection of Salmonella Invasion
After incubation, the ligated ends of the crops and intestinal sections were excised at the ligature and opened longitudinally to allow for better contact of the antibiotic with the lumen. Tissues were rinsed with fresh medium and placed in sterile RPMI, which contained 500 µg/mL of GS. Tissues were then incubated for an additional 5 h at 37°C with 5% CO2. The concentration and duration of GS used was determined with repeated antibiotic sensitivity testing in previous studies (Moore et al., 2003). This was done to kill off any SE present in the culture media that had not invaded the target tissue because GS does not efficiently penetrate the tissues (Moore et al., 2003). After incubation with GS, tissues were removed from the culture media, rinsed in PBS, weighed, and individually stomached with 10 mL of sterile phosphate buffered saline. Serial dilutions (101 to 105) of stomached samples were made and plated onto Brilliant Green Agar (Becton, Dickinson and Co., Sparks, MD) containing 25 µg/mL of NO (Sigma-Aldrich) and 20 µg/mL of NA (BGA-NO/NA, Sigma-Aldrich). Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37°C and the colony-forming units per gram of tissue were enumerated. Additionally, 1 mL of stomached material from each sample was added to 10 mL of Rappaport-Vassiliadis (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, Hants., England) broth, incubated for 24 h at 37°C, and isolated into BGA-NO/NA plates. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37°C and examined for the presence of SE colonies. Culture media in which cells were incubated with GS were also incubated in Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth and plated to assure sufficient kill of introduced SE. Further identification as SE was performed serologically using Salmonella O antiserum group D, factors 1, 9, 12 (Becton, Dickinson and Co.).
Tissue Viability
Additionally, tissue samples were cut from a subset of birds and stained with Trypan Blue (Sigma-Aldrich) stain at various stages of the procedure to assess cell viability. No difference in cell viability was identified between pre- and postincubation with SE, GS, or both (data not shown). Furthermore, no difference in staining was observed between feed-deprived birds and full-fed birds, suggesting similar viability of the tissues from both treatment groups (data not shown). An additional set of tissue samples were then made nonviable by incubation at 55°C for 5 min. Nonheat-treated and heat-treated tissue samples were then incubated with SE and GS to allow for identification of SE invasion. The SE recovery of heat-treated tissues was significantly reduced as compared with the nonheat-treated tissues, suggesting that differences in SE uptake were not correlated with cell viability (data not shown).
Statistical Analyses
Each trial consisted of 6 samples per tissue treatment group. Data were analyzed using SAS statistical analysis software (SAS Institute, 1999). Log colony-forming units of SE counts among treatment groups were determined by ANOVA using the GLM procedures. Statistical analyses were considered significant at P < 0.05.
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Responses of feed-deprived molted birds to SE infection were also affected; hens exposed to an exogenous source of SE concomitantly during molt induction exhibited a more severe infection as compared with their un-molted counterparts. The intestinal shed rate was higher in feed-deprived hens (Holt and Porter, 1992a, 1992b; Holt et al., 1995), and these hens also shed more organisms (Holt and Porter 1992a,b; Holt, 1993; Holt et al. 1994, 1995) and exhibited significantly more intestinal inflammation, primarily in the colon and cecum, because of the infection (Holt and Porter, 1992a; Porter and Holt, 1993; Holt et al., 1995; Arnold and Holt, 1996; Macri et al., 1997). Additionally, hens were 100- to 1,000-fold more susceptible to an SE infection (Holt, 1993; Holt et al., 1994), and readily transmitted SE horizontally to birds in adjacent cages (Holt, 1995) and to birds in cages a distance away (Holt et al., 1998). Molting also caused the recurrence of a previous SE infection (Holt and Porter, 1993) indicating that the procedure can significantly affect an SE infection at different times in the infection cycle. The SE penetration of crops was unaffected by feed withdrawal in any of the trials (Figure 1
). The SE penetration of ilea was numerically increased in nonfed hens in trials 1 and 2 (Figure 2
). The penetration of ceca by SE was significantly increased by feed withdrawal in trial 3 (P < 0.05) and numerically increased in trials 1 and 2 (Figure 3
). These data may suggest that there is a difference in the ability of SE to invade tissues from nonfed hens as compared with full-fed hens in vitro.
|
|
|
These data support in vivo findings and suggest that intestinal sections from feed-deprived hens are more susceptible to SE infiltration in vitro. However, SE invasion of ovaries was significantly reduced in nonfed hens in trials 1 and 2 (P < 0.05) but not in trial 3 (Figure 4
), suggesting that ovaries from full-fed hens are more susceptible to Salmonella invasion than ovaries from molted hens. These findings are contrary to in vivo findings that show that fasted hens have a higher incidence of ovarian infection than full-fed hens. Although difficult to explain from current data, these finding may involve active recruitment of follicles and yolk deposition in active laying hens. These data do suggest that fasting and ovarian regression do not exert a direct effect on Salmonella invasion of ovaries and that an alternate mechanism is involved in the susceptibility of fasted hens to ovarian invasion by Salmonella.
|
Received for publication June 17, 2005. Accepted for publication November 7, 2005.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Arnold, J. W., and P. S. Holt. 1996. Cytotoxicity in chicken alimentary secretions as measured by a derivative of the tumor necrosis factor assay. Poult. Sci. 75:329334.[ISI][Medline]
Baker, M., J. Brake, and G. R. McDaniel. 1983. The relationship between body weight loss during an induced molt and postmolt egg production, egg weight, and shell quality in caged layers. Poult. Sci. 62:409413.[ISI][Medline]
Bell, D. 1987. Is molting still a viable replacement alternative? Poult. Trib. 95:3235.
Ben-Nathan, B., N. Drabkin, and D. Heller. 1981. The effect of starvation on the immune response of chickens. Avian Dis. 25:214217.[ISI][Medline]
Ben-Nathan, B., E. D. Heller, and M. Perek. 1977. The effect of starvation on antibody production of chicks. Poult. Sci. 56:14681471.[ISI][Medline]
Brake, J., and P. Thaxton. 1979. Physiological changes in caged layers during a forced molt. 2. Gross changes in organs. Poult. Sci. 58:707716.[ISI][Medline]
Chandra, R. K. 1974. Rosette-forming T lymphocytes and cell-mediated immunity in malnutrition. Br. Med. J. 3:608609.[ISI][Medline]
Chandra, R. K. 1990. Cellular and molecular basis of nutrition-immunity interactions. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 282:1318.
Cunningham, F. E., O. J. Cotterill, and E. M. Funk. 1960. The effect of season and age of birds. 1. On egg size, quality, and yield. Poult. Sci. 39:289299.
Depasquale-Jardieu, P., and P. J. Fraker. 1979. The role of corticosterone in the loss in immune function in the zinc-deficient A/J mouse. J. Nutr. 109:18471855.
Durant, J. A., D. E. Corrier, J. A. Byrd, L. H. Stanker, and S. C. Ricke. 1999. Feed deprivation affects crop environment and modulates Salmonella enteritidis colonization and invasion of Leghorn hens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:19191923.
Etches, R. J. 1990. The ovulatory cycle of the hen. Crit. Rev. Poult. Biol. 2:293318.
Etches, R. J., J. B. Williams, and J. Rzasa. 1984. Effects of corticosterone and dietary changes in the hen on ovarian function, plasma LH and steroids and the response to exogenous LH-RH. J. Reprod. Fertil. 70:121130.
Fedorka-Cray, P. J., L. C. Kelly, T. J. Stabel, J. T. Gray, and J. A. Laufer. 1995. Alternate routes of invasion may affect pathogenesis of Salmonella typhimurium in swine. Infect. Immun. 63:26582664.[Abstract]
Giannella, R. A., S. B. Formal, G. J. Dammin, and H. Collins. 1973. Studies of fluid secretion, mucus invasion, and morphologic reaction in the rabbit ileum. J. Cin. Invest. 52:441453.[ISI][Medline]
Gross, R. L., and P. M. Newberne. 1980. Role of nutrition in immunologic function. Physiol. Rev. 60:188206.
Holt, P. S. 1993. Effect of inducted molting on the susceptibility of White Leghorn hens to a Salmonella enteritidis infection. Avian. Dis. 37:412417.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S. 1995. Horizontal transmission of Salmonella enteritidis in molted and unmolted laying chickens. Avian Dis. 39:239249.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., R. J. Buhr, D. L. Cunningham, and R. E. Porter, Jr. 1994. Effect of two different molting procedures on Salmonella enteritidis infection. Poult. Sci. 73:12671275.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., N. P. Macri, and R. E. Porter Jr. 1995. Microbiological analysis of the early Salmonella enteritidis infection in molted and unmolted hens. Avian Dis. 39:5563.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., B. W. Mitchell, and R. K. Gast. 1998. Airborne horizontal transmission of Salmonella enteritidis in molted laying chickens. Avian Dis. 42:4552.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., and R. E. Porter Jr. 1992a. Microbiological and histopathological effects of an induced molt fasting procedure on a Salmonella enteritidis infection in chickens. Avian Dis. 36:610618.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., and R. E. Porter Jr. 1992b. Effect of induced molting on the course of infection and transmission of Salmonella enteritidis in white leghorn hens of different ages. Poult. Sci. 71:18421848.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, P. S., and R. E. Porter Jr. 1993. Effect of induced molting on the recurrence of a previous Salmonella enteritidis infection. Poult. Sci. 72:20692078.[ISI][Medline]
Macri, N. P., R. E. Porter Jr., and P. S. Holt. 1997. The effects of induced molting on the severity of acute intestinal infection caused by Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis. 41:117124.[ISI][Medline]
Moore, R. W., Z. R. Howard, I. B. Zabala-Diaz, L. F. Kubena, J. A. Byrd, S. G. Burkhold, D. J. Nisbet, and S. C. Ricke. 2003. Effects of ovarian follicular maturation on Salmonella invasion. Poult. Sci. 81(Supp.1):43.
National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th revision. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Pal, S. C., C. G. Pandit, and N. G. S. Raghavan. 1968. Chicken ileal lop as an experimental model for chlera. Ind. J. Med. Res. 56:14821485.
Porter, R. E. Jr., and P. S. Holt. 1993. Effect of induced molting on the severity of intestinal lesions caused by Salmonella enteritidis in chickens. Avian Dis. 37:10091016.[ISI][Medline]
SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Vol. 1 and 2. Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
St. Louis, M. E., D. L. Morse, M. E. Potter, T. M. DeMelfi, J. J. Guzewick, R. V. Tauxe, and P. A. Blake. 1988. The emergence of Grade A eggs as a major source of Salmonella enteritidis infections: New implications for the control of salmonellosis. JAMA 259:21032107.[Abstract]
Thiagarajan, D., A. M. Saeed, and E. K. Asem. 1994. Mechanism of transovarian transmission of Salmonella enteritidis in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 73:8998.[ISI][Medline]
USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 1989. National poultry improvement plan and auxiliary provision. Veterinary Services, Publication APIUS 9140. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |