This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Djeraba, A. Articles by Quéré, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Djeraba, A. Articles by Quéré, P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, February 2002, p. 1062-1070, Vol. 76, No. 3
0022-538X/01/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JVI.76.3.1062-1070.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Protective Effect of Avian Myelomonocytic Growth Factor in Infection with Marek’s Disease Virus

Station de Pathologie Aviaire et de Parasitologie, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France,¹ Australian Animal Health Laboratory, CSIRO Livestock Industries, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia²

Received 27 June 2001/ Accepted 25 October 2001

Marek’s disease virus (MDV) is a herpesvirus that induces T lymphomas in chickens. The aim of this study was to assess the role of the macrophage activator chicken myelomonocytic growth factor (cMGF) in controlling MDV infection. B13/B13 chickens, which are highly susceptible to MD, were either treated with cMGF delivered via a live fowlpox virus (fp/cMGF) or treated with the parent vector (fp/M3) or were left as untreated controls. Seven days later, when challenged with the very virulent RB-1B strain of MDV, the spleens of chickens treated with fp/cMGF showed increased expression of the inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) gene compared to those of control chickens and fp/M3-treated chickens. Increased iNOS gene expression was also accompanied by greater induction of gamma interferon and macrophage inflammatory protein (K203) gene expression, both possible activators of iNOS. fp/cMGF treatment also increased the number of monocytes and systemic NO production in contrast to fp/M3 treatment. Even though cMGF treatment was unable to prevent death for the chickens, it did prolong their survival time, and viremia and tumor incidence were greatly reduced. In addition, cMGF treatment improved the partial protection induced by vaccination with HVT (herpesvirus isolated from turkeys) against RB-1B, preventing 100% mortality (versus 66% with vaccination alone) and greatly reducing tumor development. Treatment with fp/M3 did not have such effects. These results suggest that cMGF may play multiple roles in protection against MD. First, it may enhance the innate immune response by increasing the number and activity of monocytes and macrophages, resulting in increased NO production. Second, it may enhance the acquired immune response, indicated by its ability to enhance vaccine efficacy.