Skip to main content

Table 2 Impact of aerosolization of liposomal chicken vaccinea, incorporating H9N2 and MG antigens in presence and absence of Echinacea extract (EE), on mucosal immunity to H9N2

From: Evaluation in broilers of aerosolized nanoparticles vaccine encapsulating imuno-stimulant and antigens of avian influenza virus/Mycoplasma gallisepticum

Treatmentb

Mean ELISA – O.D. values of IgA/IgG specific to H9N2 at different ages (d)

14

21

28c

35

1

0.01/0.01

0.21/0.61

0.51/1.21

0.81/1.81

2

0.01/0.01

0.02/0.02

0.02/0.02

0.32/0.92

3

0.01/0.01

0.63/1.53

0.93/2.33

1.53/2.93

4

0.01/0.01

0.01/0.02

0.01/0.01

0.14/0.44

5

0.01/0.01

0.53/1.63

0.73/2.23

1.05/2.15

6

0.01/0.01

0.02/0.02

0.02/0.02

0.04/0.06

  1. aVaccination and/or EE administration to broilers at 14 and 21 days of age
  2. bTRT 1 = Vaccine administration containing H9N2 and MG antigens and challenged; TRT 2 = EE administration only and challenged; TRT 3 = Vaccine administration containing H9N2, MG, EE, and challenged; TRT 4 = Only challenged (positive controls); TRT 5 = Vaccine administration containing H9N2, MG, EE, and deprived of challenge; TRT 6 = Deprived of antigens and EE, and of challenge (Negative Controls)
  3. cChallenge at 28 days of age with 4HA units/50 μl of each of H9N2 and MG
  4. 1-6Means in numerators of a column followed by different Arabic numerical - superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05); similarly, means in denominators of a column followed by different Arabic - numerical superscripts are also significantly different (P < 0.05)