• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Can J Microbiol . Evaluating how infectious bursal disease virus influences influenza A virus transmission in chickens

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Can J Microbiol


. 2026 Jun 9.
doi: 10.1139/cjm-2025-0208. Online ahead of print.
Evaluating how infectious bursal disease virus influences influenza A virus transmission in chickens

Peter Bonney[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Marie Culhane[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Andrew Broadbent[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Cristian Flores-Figueroa[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jeannette Munoz-Aguayo[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Kristelle Mendoza[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Carol Cardona[SUP] 7 8 [/SUP]


Affiliations
Abstract

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a major cause of immunosuppression in chickens that has been shown to affect influenza A virus (AIV) pathogenicity and shedding patterns. In this study, we compared the shedding of a low passage duck origin AIV in two groups of specific- pathogen free chickens: one group that was IBDV-inoculated and one sham-inoculated group. At three weeks age, the birds were divided and intranasally given one of three doses (102, 103, 105) of A/mallard/OH/421/1987 (H7N8) low pathogenicity AIV. Although the bursae of the IBDV-infected chicks had higher lesion scores, the damage was minimal. We observed that this low IBDV exposure increased resistance to AIV challenge. There was no difference between the mean days of shedding between the two groups, although the IBDV inoculated group shed less virus (approximately 1 log10 less per bird). Uninoculated contacts co-housed with the treatment groups given 105 AIV became infected. Additionally, chicks shedding approximately 103-4 EID50/ml AIV (CT of 33 or less) transmitted virus to cage mates. These findings demonstrate that the impacts of immunosuppressive agents on AIV challenge may vary, based on a number of confounding factors.


 
Back
Top