Selection for Resistance to Aflatoxin in Chickens

Wyatt, R. D.; Marks, H. L.; Manning, R. O.

doi:10.3382/ps.0661901

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A direct comparison cannot be made between mortality values resulting from the single oral dose of aflatoxin in the present study and the LD50 values reported for fifth generation progeny of the C and AR lines by Wyatt et al (1987), because those values were calculated from six different doses of aflatoxin administered to each line. However, mortality values of 63% and 30% for the C and AR lines, respectively, were obtained when fifth generation progeny were administered 12 mg of aflatoxin per kg of BW (Wyatt et al, 1987). From these data, it appears that there was a difference in the relative aflatoxin resistance between lines of the fifth and sixth generation progeny.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Chicks used in the present study were sixth generation progeny from lines of AC chickens selected for five generations for resistance to a single oral dose of aflatoxin (AR line) or maintained as an unselected control line (C line) as described by Wyatt et al (1987). Dayold chicks were placed in electrically heated batteries with raised wire floors under continuous illumination.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences in blood parameters, hepatic enzymes, and the in vivo distribution and disposition of aflatoxin Bi between the lines of Japanese quail were presented in a subsequent report (Pegram, 1986). Because the survivor selection technique used by Marks and Wyatt (1979) allowed rapid genetic progress and provided an excellent model to study aflatoxin toxicity and metabolism in the Japanese quail, a similar technique was used to establish aflatoxinresistant lines of a commercial broiler stock and the Athens-Canadian (AC) broiler popula- tion (Wyatt et al, 1987). In that study little progress was made in selecting for aflatoxin resistance in the broiler stock, but progress was rapid in the AC population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Dietary Aflatoxin in Aflatoxin-Resistant and Control Lines of Chickens

et al. 1990

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The resistance to a single oral dose (12 mg of aflatoxin per kg of BW) and 4 wk of dietary aflatoxin (2.5 mg per kg of feed) were investigated in chicks selected for five generations for resistance to acute aflatoxicosis (AR) and unselected control (C) chicks. The AR chicks were more resistant to a single oral dose of aflatoxin and had significantly decreased sodium pentobarbital sleeping time compared to C chicks. Four-weeks exposure to dietary aflatoxin did not result in any significant change in BW or feed conversion ratios of chicks from either the C or AR line. However, more sensitive indicators of aflatoxicosis including plasma total protein, albumin, cholesterol concentrations, and gamma glutamyl transferase activity were significantly altered in C chicks but not in AR chicks fed aflatoxin. Percentages of liver lipid and liver hyperplasia score were also significantly altered as a result of dietary aflatoxin treatment in C but not AR chicks. These data indicate that selection-associated differences exist between the C and AR lines of chickens that convey resistance to not only a single oral dose of aflatoxin but also to a more chronic dietary exposure to aflatoxin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Dietary Aflatoxin in Aflatoxin-Resistant and Control Lines of Chickens

et al. 1990

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Selection for AFB1 resistant lines of chicken [291][292][293][294][295] and quail [296][297][298][299] has been investigated; however, selection studies have not been performed in the far more sensitive domestic turkey. Improvement in AFB1 resistance is highly dependent on starting population [299] and selection is most effective during AFB1 challenge since correlations of phenotypic measures like weight gain or blood parameters are most informative during exposure [291,292,298].…”

Section: Selection For Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Aflatoxicosis: Lessons from Toxicity and Responses to Aflatoxin B1 in Poultry

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review is a comprehensive introduction to the effects of poultry exposure to the toxic and carcinogenic mycotoxin aflatoxin B1 (AFB1). The relationship between AFB1 sensitivity and metabolism, major direct and indirect effects of AFB1, recent studies of gene expression and transcriptome responses to exposure, and mitigation strategies to reduce toxicity are discussed. Exposure to AFB1 primarily occurs by consumption of contaminated corn, grain or other feed components. Low levels of residual AFB1 in poultry feeds can cause reduction in growth, feed conversion, egg production, and compromised immune functions, resulting in significant economic costs to producers. Thus, AFB1 acts as a "force multiplier" synergizing the adverse effects of microbial pathogens and other agents, and factors detrimental to poultry health. Domestic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are one of the most sensitive animals known to AFB1 due, in large part, to a combination of efficient hepatic bioactivation by cytochromes P450 1A5 and 3A37, and deficient hepatic glutathione-S-transferase (GST)-mediated detoxification. Because of their sensitivity, turkeys are a good model to investigate chemopreventive treatments and feed additives for their ability to reduce AFB1 toxicity. Transcriptome analysis (RNA-seq) of turkey poults (liver and spleen) has identified AFB1-induced gene expression changes in pathways of apoptosis, carcinogenesis, lipid regulation, antimicrobial activity, cytotoxicity and antigen presentation. Current research focuses on further identifying the molecular mechanisms OPEN ACCESSAgriculture 2015, 5 743 underlying AFB1 toxicity with the goal of reducing aflatoxicosis and improving poultry health.

show abstract

“…Other authors, however, reported a lack of effect on growth rates on certain chicken lines fed 20 mg/kg aflatoxin and attributed this to a genetic variation in the resistance of chickens as a result of chronic exposure to aflatoxin (Lanza et al ., 1982;Wyatt et al ., 1987). It is therefore possible that because of continuous exposure of village chickens to aflatoxin they are bound to develop resistance, as suggested by our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aflatoxicosis, infectious bursal disease and immune response to Newcastle disease vaccination in rural chickens

Otim

Mukiibi-Muka²,

Bisgaard

2005

Avian Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the immunosuppressive effects of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and aflatoxin in indigenous chickens of Uganda, Newcastle disease (ND) seronegative chicks were randomly allocated to two treatment groups. Group A chicks were injected intramuscularly at the age of 3 weeks every 2 days up to four times with 0.250 mg aflatoxin B1 per bird, group B was infected occulo-nasally with IBDV 3 days prior to vaccination, while group C was left as a control group. All the chicks from the three groups were then vaccinated with Hitchner B1 vaccine at 21 days of age followed by a secondary vaccination with La Sota vaccine 3 weeks later. Humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were assessed by measuring antibody levels and delayed hypersensitivity reaction post vaccination. Growth performance in the three groups was assessed by weekly body weights while evidence of excretion of vaccinal ND virus was detected by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.A significant (P B/0.05) reduction in the haemagglutination inhibition of ND antibody titre following initial priming with Hitchner B1 and subsequent booster with La Sota vaccines and a delayed hypersensitivity test following sensitization with dinitrochlorobenzene showed aflatoxin to be a more potent immunosuppressant than IBDV. Aflatoxin exerted its maximum effects during primary antibody response in the second and third weeks post vaccination. Aflatoxin and IBDV did not affect growth rates (P/0.05) but prolonged La Sota vaccine virus excretion in faeces.Under our experimental conditions, aflatoxin and IBDV do not significantly affect the immune response of rural chickens to ND vaccination.

show abstract

Selection for Resistance to Aflatoxin in Chickens

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Effects of Dietary Aflatoxin in Aflatoxin-Resistant and Control Lines of Chickens

Effects of Dietary Aflatoxin in Aflatoxin-Resistant and Control Lines of Chickens

Aflatoxicosis: Lessons from Toxicity and Responses to Aflatoxin B1 in Poultry

Aflatoxicosis, infectious bursal disease and immune response to Newcastle disease vaccination in rural chickens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About