Rl. Witter et al., Avian leukosis virus subgroup J infection profiles in broiler breeder chickens: Association with virus transmission to progeny, AVIAN DIS, 44(4), 2000, pp. 913-931
Profiles of infection with avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) and fact
ors that predict virus transmission to progeny were studied. Eggs from an i
nfected broiler breeder flock were hatched at the laboratory. The flock was
reared in a floor pen, transferred to laying cages at 22 wk, and inseminat
ed to produce fertile eggs. A cohort of 133 chickens was tested at frequent
intervals over a 62-wk period for virus, viral antigens, or antibodies in
plasma, cloacal swabs, egg albumen, and embryos. Virus was detected in 7% o
f chicks at hatch but spread rapidly so that virtually all chicks became in
fected between 2 and 8 wk of age. Mortality due to myeloid leukosis and rel
ated tumors was 22%. Over 40% of the chicks developed persistent infections
, whereas the remainder experienced transient infections. Five types of inf
ection profiles were recognized. Novel responses included hens that were po
sitive for virus intermittently or started late in life to shed viral antig
ens into the cloaca. ALV-J was isolated from 6% of 1036 embryos evaluated b
etween 26 and 62 wk. However, over 90% of the virus-positive embryos were p
roduced between 29 and 34 wk of age. Of 80 hens that produced embryos, 21 p
roduced at least one infected embryo and were identified as transmitters. A
ll but one transmitter hen would have been detected by a combination of vir
emia, cloacal swab, and albumen tests conducted between 18 and 26 wk Howeve
r, virus was transmitted to embryos from hens that were not persistently vi
remic or that rarely shed viral group-specific antigen into the albumen of
their eggs, intermittent patterns of both antigen shedding and virus transm
ission to embryos were observed in some hens. These results validate curren
t screening procedures to identify potential transmitter hens and provide s
ome suggestions for improvement bur also show chat identification of all tr
ansmitter hens by such procedures is unlikely. Thus, eradication programs b
ased solely on dam testing may be less effective than those where dam testi
ng is combined with procedures to mitigate early horizontal transmission in
progeny chicks.