ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Assessment of Immunological Interference Between Live Infectious Bursal Disease Virus and Avian Reovirus Vaccines in SPF Chickens.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and avian reovirus (ARV) are major immunosuppressive pathogens controlled through the widespread use of live attenuated vaccines. Concerns persist regarding potential immune interference when these vaccines are co-administered, though comprehensive in vivo data are lacking. Here, we reported the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a live IBDV vaccine (W2512G-61) and a live ARV vaccine (ZJS) administered simultaneously or sequentially at 3-, 5-, and 7-day intervals in specific-pathogen-free (SPF) chickens. The IBDV live vaccine elicits strong, interval-independent humoral immunity and conferred 100% protection, demonstrating no compromise from ARV co-administration. Conversely, ARV-specific immunity was severely impaired by close temporal vaccination. ARV protection rates fell from 86.7% (ARV-only) to 46.7% with simultaneous administration and from 93.3% to 66.7% with a 3-day interval. Extending the interval to five or seven days eliminated this interference, restoring ARV antibody titers and protection to levels equivalent to ARV-only control vaccinated groups. This study provides the first definitive evidence of asymmetric immune interference between live IBDV and ARV vaccines. The results establish a minimum safe interval of five days to prevent interference and ensure robust ARV vaccine efficacy. These findings offer critical, evidence-based guidance for optimizing vaccination schedules to improve disease control in commercial poultry production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.