https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4527-9733
Figures
Abstract
Colibacillosis, a disease caused by Escherichia coli in broiler chickens has serious implications on food safety, security, and economic sustainability. Antibiotics are required for treating the disease, while vaccination and biosecurity are used for its prevention. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted under the COST Action CA18217—European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment (ENOVAT), aimed to assess the efficacy of E. coli vaccination in broiler production and provide evidence-based recommendations. A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, including, PubMed, CAB Abstracts, Web of Science and Agricola, yielded 2,722 articles. Following a defined protocol, 39 studies were selected for data extraction. Most of the studies were experimental infection trials, with only three field studies identified, underscoring the need for more field-based research. The selected studies reported various types of vaccines, including killed (n = 5), subunit (n = 8), outer membrane vesicles/protein-based (n = 4), live/live-attenuated (n = 16), and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN) (n = 6) vaccines. The risk of bias assessment revealed that a significant proportion of studies reporting mortality (92.3%) or feed conversion ratio (94.8%) as outcomes, had “unclear” regarding bias. The meta-analysis, focused on live-attenuated and CpG ODN vaccines, demonstrated a significant trend favoring both vaccination types in reducing mortality. However, the review also highlighted the challenges in reproducing colibacillosis in experimental setups, due to considerable variation in challenge models involving different routes of infection, predisposing factors, and challenge doses. This highlights the need for standardizing the challenge model to facilitate comparisons between studies and ensure consistent evaluation of vaccine candidates. While progress has been made in the development of E. coli vaccines for broilers, further research is needed to address concerns such as limited heterologous protection, practicability for application, evaluation of efficacy in field conditions and adoption of novel approaches.
Citation: Paudel S, Apostolakos I, Vougat Ngom R, Tilli G, de Carvalho Ferreira HC, Piccirillo A (2024) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of vaccination against colibacillosis in broiler production. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0301029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301029
Editor: Mohamed Ezzat Abd El-Hack, Zagazig University Faculty of Agriculture, EGYPT
Received: December 20, 2023; Accepted: March 8, 2024; Published: March 22, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Paudel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Poultry meat is expected to hold a substantial share in global meat consumption, accounting for approximately half of the growth in meat production by 2032 [1]. As the poultry industry intensifies, ensuring optimum food safety and animal welfare becomes a top priority. However, bacterial pathogens, such as Escherichia coli pose a major challenge to the poultry industry [2]. E. coli is a gram-negative bacterium in the family of Enterobacteriaceae that normally resides in the healthy gut of chickens as a commensal [3, 4]. However, infection with pathogenic strains can lead to colibacillosis, a syndrome that affects chickens of all ages [5]. Colibacillosis in broilers can manifest in various clinical forms, including omphalitis, airsacculitis, femoral head necrosis and cellulitis, resulting in high condemnation rates and mortality [6–8]. The avian E. coli isolates are highly heterogenous, with pathogenicity likely involving coordination among several virulence genes, host factors or transfer of genetic elements among E. coli populations [9, 10]. Thus, understanding the pathogenesis of colibacillosis remains a challenge [11].
Colibacillosis is primarily treated with antibiotics. However, recent studies have shown the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of E. coli on a global scale [12]. Multidrug resistance in E. coli has become a concerning threat, even in flocks where no antibiotics are used [13–15]. In Europe, E. coli is identified as one of the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens from poultry [16]. Consequently, there is a growing need to explore preventive strategies such as vaccination and biosecurity, as opposed to relying solely on antimicrobial treatments. In the past, numerous studies have reported a range of potential vaccine candidates as summarized in previous reviews and book chapters [5, 17–20]. However, there have been no systematic reviews conducted to assess the efficacy of E. coli vaccines in chickens. Such reviews are essential for providing clear, comprehensive evidence that can inform evidence-based recommendations. Consequently, this study, conducted under the framework of the COST Action CA18217—European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment (ENOVAT), aimed to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the current evidence regarding the efficacy of vaccination in preventing colibacillosis in broiler chickens.
Methods
This review was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [21] and adheres to the structured and reporting guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 [22].
Protocol registration
A systematic review protocol was developed, registered in the University of Padua Research Archive institutional repository (https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3439974), and published on the Systematic Reviews for Animals and Food (SYREAF) website (https://syreaf.org).
Eligibility criteria
The primary focus of this systematic review was to include controlled trials with natural disease exposure. However, disease challenge studies and observational studies were also considered. The studies had to be conducted in broiler production chain (Population) and assess the protective efficacy of vaccine candidates (Intervention). The vaccine intervention was compared to either an infected and untreated control group or a group that received placebo treatment (Comparator). The selected Outcomes of vaccine efficacy for this review were mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and condemnation rate at the slaughterhouse. Articles written in English or Spanish were included, and no restrictions were imposed on publication date or geographical location of the studies.
Sources of information
To ensure comprehensive coverage of articles, the following bibliographic databases for literature search were used that provide a high level of article recall in the biomedical field [23]: i) MEDLINE (via PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), ii) CAB Abstracts (via Ovid, https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/ovid/cab-abstracts-31), iii) Web of Science (WoS, http://webofknowledge.com/), and iv) Agricola (via ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/). Searches in CAB Abstracts and Agricola were conducted through the University of Bern (Switzerland), while those in PubMed and WoS through the University of Padova (Italy). All databases of WoS were used, including WoS core collection, BIOSIS Citation Index, KCI-Korean Journal Database, Medline, Russian Science Citation Index and SciELO Citation Index. However, because of their research scopes, certain editions were excluded, namely Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The initial search was conducted in September 2021 and a second search covering the period from September 2021 to October 2023 was performed in October 2023. The databases and search string were the same in both the search events.
Search strategy and study selection
The search strategy employed a multi-stranded approach, utilizing various combinations of concepts to ensure comprehensive retrieval of relevant research and achieve high sensitivity [21]. The concept and the corresponding search strings are presented in Table 1.
The bibliographic records of the identified articles were downloaded in BibTeX format and imported to Rayyan [24]. To ensure data accuracy, deduplication process was conducted using the built-in function of Rayyan. The screening and evaluation of studies were conducted in two steps. In the first step, at least two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts. Any conflicts or disagreements were resolved through discussion or with the involvement of a third reviewer. To maintain consistency among reviewers, a calibration exercise was first conducted by screening 25 randomly selected studies. The eligibility of studies was evaluated using a set of questions adapted from a previously published protocol [25] as:
- Is the study original research assessing the use of vaccine(s) to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE], UNCLEAR [PASS]
- Does the study include an eligible comparator via a controlled trial, disease challenge study or observational study? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE], UNCLEAR [PASS]
Studies were excluded only if all reviewers unanimously agreed that the answer to any of the screening questions was “no”. The studies that passed the first screening step proceeded to the next, where the full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. In the second phase, the following set of questions was applied:
- Is a full text of more than 500 words available? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
- Is a full text available in English and/or Spanish? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
- Is the population of the study broilers? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
- Is the intervention of the study the use of vaccine(s) to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
- Is at least one of mortality, FCR, or condemnations at slaughter due to colibacillosis the outcome(s) described? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
- Is the study design a controlled trial with natural disease exposure or a disease challenge study or an observational field study? YES [PASS], NO [EXCLUDE]
Data extraction
A Microsoft Excel (2019 version) standardized spreadsheet, developed and validated by the authors, was used for data extraction. Relevant study characteristics, population type (broilers or broiler breeders), group size, year of the study, age of the birds during intervention and outcome assessment, and duration of observation were collected. Detailed data on the intervention were also extracted, including the vaccine type and commercial name, route and dose of administration, comparator group, unit of population, and total number of birds included. For studies involving disease challenge, information on challenge day, duration, strain, and administration route were collected.
Data extraction focused on mortality, FCR and condemnations at slaughterhouse due to colibacillosis. For mortality, the unit of measurement and assessment period were recorded. For studies reporting FCR and/or condemnations at slaughter, values such as FCR value and/or age/weight of slaughtered birds were extracted.
Risk of bias
The risk of bias (RoB) assessment deviated from the original protocol and used instead a recently reported poultry-specific method [26]. Five domains of bias were evaluated, including bias from randomization (Domain 1), deviations in interventions (Domain 2), missing outcome data (Domain 3), measurement of the outcome (Domain 4), and selection of reported results (Domain 5). Briefly, each domain of bias is composed of several signaling questions that guide the overall risk of bias for each domain. This overall risk of each domain can then be reported as ‘‘low risk” ‘‘unclear”, or ‘‘high risk”. At the end, for each included study, a final overall risk of bias judgment is provided to each outcome based on the results from the five domains. Therefore, a ‘‘low risk of bias” outcome would result from all five domains being classified as ‘‘low risk”; ‘‘unclear” would result when either one or two domains for that outcome have been classified as ‘‘unclear”; and ‘‘high risk of bias” would result from at least three domains being classified as ‘‘unclear” or if at least one domain is classified as ‘‘high risk”. The RoB assessment was conducted only for mortality and FCR outcomes.
Data synthesis and statistical analysis
The results of the literature search and selection were reported, and descriptive analysis of extracted data was done by using Microsoft Excel (version 2019). After data extraction, included studies were narratively summarized according to the type of vaccines used and study’s setting. The meta-analysis was performed using Revman version 5.4.1 according to Higgins et al. [21]. Considering the data of the selected studies, the meta-analysis was performed for two groups of vaccines (i.e. live attenuated vaccine and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides) with “mortality” as outcome. Some differences between included studies (age and route of inoculation, E. coli strain, dosage, etc.) were not considered during meta-analysis. The comparison concerned “infected and vaccinated” and “infected and no vaccinated” groups. Data used consisted of the number of dead animals per each group. The effect measure for outcome were odds ratios (with the 95% confidence levels) with a fixed model visualized through Forest plots. The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated with Cochrane test based on Chi-Squared. Significant heterogeneity was considered when the I2 value was greater than 50% and the p-value was less than 0.05. The sources of heterogeneity between studies were not explored.
Reporting bias assessment
As recommended by the Cochrane methodology [21], funnel plots followed by the Egger’s test were used to assess publication bias for the outcome ‘‘mortality” using MedCalc version 22.019. This was performed only when sufficient data were available (>10 studies). Certainty was not assessed.
Results and discussion
Number of eligible studies
The results of the selected studies, based on the inclusion criteria, are summarized in Fig 1. Initially, 2,722 studies were identified from the selected databases. After removing non-eligible studies based on the inclusion criteria, 39 studies were deemed suitable for data extraction.
Studies characteristics
In total, 39 studies were selected for data extraction. Various types of E. coli vaccines with different efficacy were reported in the selected studies (Fig 2), including killed (n = 5), subunit (n = 8), outer membrane vesicles/protein based (n = 4), live/live-attenuated (n = 16) and CpG-ODN (n = 6) vaccines. Ten studies evaluated the efficacy of a commercially available vaccine, while others aimed to assess the suitability of newly reported vaccine candidates. Mortality was considered as an assessment parameter in all studies. Additionally, FCR was included in most studies, except for five.
“n" refers to number of studies.
Killed vaccines
Vaccines using inactivated bacteria can elicit an immune response, mainly through humoral immunity. These vaccines are considered safe as they do not replicate within the host. Hyperimmunization of chickens with intravenous injection of a heat-killed E. coli J5 strain was shown to be effective in preventing mortality and pathological lesions following a challenge [27] (Table 2, S1 Table). In another study formalin treatment, irradiation and ultrasonication methods were employed for bacterial inactivation, all of which were shown effective in preventing lesions [28]. Sayed et al. (2021) also showed that formalin-killed E. coli vaccination significantly reduced mortality after challenge and could be combined with an avian influenza vaccine prepared using the same method, which can also induce a higher antibody response in birds [29]. Recently, autogenous vaccines have been used as a potential solution to address the heterogeneity of E. coli isolates. However, there is limited evidence regarding their effectiveness. In a study conducted by Keita et al. (2022), passive immunization using a bivalent formalin-killed autogenous vaccine was found to be effective in reducing mortality when chicks were challenged with one of two E. coli strains [30]. This indicates strain-specific protection provided by the vaccine. Additionally, a combination approach involving parent stock vaccination with an autogenous vaccine, along with the supplementation of feed with Enterococcus faecium DSM 7134 and fructo-oligosaccharides in the progeny, showed benefits in terms of improving body weight and gut health. However, FCR was not affected by this combination approach [31]. All of the above-mentioned vaccines have not yet reached to the commercial market.
Subunit vaccines
These vaccines consist of purified antigenic parts, such as proteins or protein fragments, rather than the entire pathogen [32]. Table 3 provides a summary of the key characteristics of subunit E. coli vaccines in broiler chickens. Details of each study are provided in S1 Table. Vandemaele et al. (2006) investigated the impact of immunization with the biologically active lectin domain of PapGII on the avian immune response to APEC O78 challenge [33]. The results showed that while immunization effectively stimulated the production of adhesion-inhibiting antibodies, it did not provide protection against APEC O78 infection through coarse spray or intra-air sac challenge. Similar results were observed when the sugar-binding domain of FimH (FimH156) was used [34]. However, Lynne et al. (2012) demonstrated that vaccinating birds with increased serum survival gene (iss) fusion proteins provoked the serum and mucosal antibody response and consequently resulted in broad protection against bacterial challenges with three different APEC strains: O1, O2 and O78 [35]. Similarly, a modified strain of Salmonella carrying multiple genes from E. coli, including P-fimbriae (papA, papG), aerobactin receptor (iutA) and CS31A surface antigen (clpG), elicited mucosal and systemic antibody responses, and stimulated lymphocytic proliferation [36]. Although a single vaccination with this attenuated Salmonella strain only provided partial protection against E. coli challenge, repeated vaccination significantly enhanced the protective response. Co-administration of this vaccine candidate with a live attenuated Salmonella expressing the heat-labile toxin of E. coli B subunit (LTB) as an adjuvant proved to be more effective in reducing mortality and morbidity rates in challenged birds [37]. In a separate study, a probiotic bacterium called Lactobacillus saerimneri was used as a delivery system to create a recombinant vaccine that expressed fimbrial subunit A (FimA) and outer membrane protein C (OmpC) of O78 APEC. Oral administration of the recombinant L. saerimneri effectively induced an antigen-specific immune response and provided protection, as 70% of vaccinated birds survived while 100% mortality was observed in the non-vaccinated challenge control group [38]. Additionally, a non-adjuvanted liposome-encapsulated mixture of rough LPSs exhibited a positive dose-dependent effect, especially in terms of antibody level in birds. Immunization with the highest dose (5μg) resulted in lower lesion scores and increased body weight, although the mortality rate did not show a significant difference [39].
Iron uptake system genes play a crucial role in the virulence mechanism of APEC. Four ferri-siderophore receptors namely FuhE, FepA, IroN, IutA were expressed in recombinant live or bacterial ghost cells [40]. However, despite increased IgG titers in birds, neither the intranasal administration of recombinant live E. coli nor the intramuscular infection of recombinant ghost cells was able to reduce mortality and lesion scores, leading to the conclusion that both vaccine candidates were non-protective.
Outer membrane vesicles/proteins-based vaccines
Outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) are naturally derived spherical nanovesicles originating from the bacterial outer membrane which contains various bacterial components, such as lipopolysaccharides, proteins, and other antigens [41]. Their protective efficacy was evaluated in broiler chickens as shown in Table 4 and S1 Table. Immunization of birds with a nanosized OMV-based vaccine derived from APEC O2 demonstrated no adverse effects. Moreover, it significantly increased the survival rate, reduced bacterial loads, and suppressed the production of proinflammatory cytokines [42]. Immunologically, the vaccine primarily stimulated antigen-specific antibody responses and IFN-γ mediated immune responses in the host. Taking a step further, a combination of multi-serogroup OMVs derived from O1, O2 and O78 E. coli strains induced a robust non-specific and antigen specific immune responses. This was evident from the production of IgG antibodies specific to APEC antigens and resulted in a 90–100% increase in protection against challenges with APEC O1, O2 or O78 strains compared to the control group [43]. It is difficult to attribute the observed protection solely to specific proteins or polysaccharides within the OMVs due to their complex composition.
To enhance vaccine uptake and improve pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, nanotechnology-based vaccines are beneficial. These vaccines are designed to boost the immune response by providing antigenic targets in a way that mimics natural infection, improving stability and targeting specific immune cells [44, 45]. Mohammed et al. (2021) investigated the potential of chitosan nanoparticles in enhancing the immune response of chickens after vaccination with the outer membrane proteins (OMPs) and flagellar antigens from O1 and O78 serogroups [46]. The study utilized two types of chitosan nanoparticles, namely the characterized chitosan (CS) and ascorbate chitosan (AsCS), in both loaded and encapsulated forms. The results demonstrated that both forms of chitosan nanoparticles improved the immune response, in terms of antibody production in chickens and provided protection against infections induced by E. coli O1 and O78, compared to the control group. Subsequent research by Abd El-Aziz et al. (2022) corroborated these findings and further demonstrated that the addition of Montanide as an adjuvant to the chitosan nanoparticles prolonged the humoral and cell-mediated immunological responses, thereby enhancing immunity for an extended period [47].
Live and live attenuated vaccines
Live and live attenuated vaccines have advantages for mass application, as they can be delivered as spray or via drinking water. Most of the studies in this review evaluated the efficacy of these vaccines (Table 5, S1 Table). A study by Frommer et al. (1994) found that a non-pathogenic piliated E. coli strain provided broad protection against colibacillosis-induced mortality caused by O1:K1, O2:K1 and O78:K80 [48]. Immunization at 14 or 21 days of age was more effective than at an early age (1 or 7 days) and drinking water or intramuscular administration showed better efficacy than the spray method. Kariyawasam et al. (2002) demonstrated that administering a live E. coli strain of O78 serotype via aerosol route at 18 days of age reduced pathological lesions and systemic bacterial colonization when challenged with the same strain [49].
Advancements in understanding genetic characteristics of E. coli led to the development of live attenuated vaccine candidates by targeting essential genes required for multiplication in the host. Peighambari et al. (2002) tested the efficacy of double mutants created by deletion of cya and crp genes in O2 and O78 E. coli strains [50]. The mutant O2 strain provided moderate protection against air sac lesions when administered via spray, while the mutant O78 strain was ineffective. It was also observed that antibody response was not stimulated in vaccinated birds, indicating the importance of innate or adaptive immunity for protection against colibacillosis. Other mutants with galE, purA or aroA deletions showed similar immunogenicity and serogroup-specific protection but they did not provide effective cross-protection against heterologous challenge [51].
Currently, there are two licensed live attenuated vaccines against E. coli infection. The crp deletion mutant of E. coli-O78 (Nisseiken Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) is marketed in Japan and is recommended to be administered via fine spray (particle size <20 μm) in day-old chickens. The vaccine has shown effectiveness in reducing lesions following the challenge with homo- and heterologous strains [52, 53], although it may be ineffective against heterologous challenge based on mortality pattern, clinical signs, pathology and bacterial re-isolation [53]. The second live attenuated vaccine is developed by deleting aroA gene of E. coli-O78 strain (Poulvac®, E. coli, Zoetis), and is usually administered via coarse spray in day-old chicks. In a field trial, the Poulvac vaccine did not affect the weight gain in broiler chickens [54]. In experimental conditions, several studies have suggested its efficacy against homologous challenge in reducing colibacillosis-associated pathological lesions [54–58]. Oral vaccination of birds at day 5 of age reduced morbidity [59] but drinking water application was found to be ineffective in inducing protection [56]. The findings regarding heterologous protection were not consistent among studies with some showing effectiveness against certain strains [54, 60], but not others [56, 57, 60]. The efficacy of the vaccine against homologous challenge was enhanced by supplementation of probiotics Enterococcus faecalis [58] and pre-treatment with Lincospectin improved the vaccine’s response [61]. However, the immune response elicited by the live attenuated vaccine was reported to be interfered by the prior application of ceftiofur sodium antibiotic in layer birds [62]. Recently, Li et al. (2017) reported that Poulvac administered alone at 1 and 12 weeks did not protect birds against intrauterine challenge despite high antibody titers [63]. However, when the live attenuated vaccine was followed by an autogenous vaccine, the onset of disease was delayed, but there was no evidence of protection against homologous or heterologous challenges.
CpG-ODN vaccines
CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG ODN) are synthetic DNA molecules that contain specific patterns of cytosine and guanine bases (CpG) recognized by the immune system. They have been used as vaccine adjuvants to enhance the immune response to antigens, including viral or bacterial protein [64]. Several studies investigated the effectiveness of CpG ODN vaccines in reducing mortality caused by colibacillosis (Table 6, S1 Table). Gunawardana et al. (2019) explored the use of CpG ODN administered in ovo to stimulate the immune system of newly hatched chicks and protect them against subcutaneous (SC) bacterial challenge with E. coli serogroup O2 [65]. The study revealed that the administration of synthetic CpG-ODN in freshly hatched chicks led to a rapid increase in immune cells, such as macrophages and dendritic cells, as well as cytokine responses in spleen and lungs. The authors also observed enhanced protection against bacterial challenge in the chickens treated with synthetic CpG-ODN, as indicated by reduced bacterial loads in various tissues and increased survival rates. Similar findings were reported in the studies conducted by Taghavi et al. (2009) and Gomis et al. (2004), which employed similar study designs involving in ovo vaccination, SC challenge with E. coli O2 at comparable doses, and similar observation period for mortality [66, 67]. Two additional studies examined the effects of CpG-ODN vaccines in newly hatched chicks but with different study designs. Allan et al. (2018) also employed in ovo delivery, however the challenge with E. coli O2 was done via the intranavel route and at a much lower dosage (25 CFUs vs 105 CFUs in the aforementioned studies) [68]. Nevertheless, the authors observed increased survival rates in chicks compared to the control group. In a study by Sarfraz et al. (2022) using a similar vaccination route and challenge model, the effectiveness of different innate immune stimulants and their combination was compared [69]. The results showed that the in ovo administration of CpG-ODN in conjunction with polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid was the most efficient in protecting chicks when they were challenged via intranasal route. In another study, one-day-old chicks received intrapulmonary delivery of CpG-ODN followed by SC challenge with E. coli O2, resulting in approximately half the relative risk of mortality compared to birds that received saline [70].
Field studies
Only a limited number of studies (Table 7, S1 Table) examined the efficacy of E. coli vaccines in field settings compared to the experimental studies mentioned above. The first two studies [71, 72] were not considered for data extraction, as they did not meet the selection criteria. One of them evaluated the effectiveness of a commercially available inactivated subunit vaccine, which contains E. coli fimbrial antigen and flagellar toxin (Nobilis®, MSD Animal Health). The vaccine was administered intramuscularly to commercial broiler breeders [71]. The results showed that the vaccinated flocks experienced lower mortality potentially associated with natural E. coli infection. However, there were no significant differences observed in terms of first week mortality in chicks, slaughterhouse condemnation rates and FCR between birds from vaccinated or non-vaccinated breeder flocks. Another study investigated the efficacy of the live attenuated Poulvac® E. coli vaccine, which was administered in day old chicks as recommended [72]. The findings demonstrated that colibacillosis-like lesions were less frequent in vaccinated flocks compared to non-vaccinated flocks. However, no differences were observed in FCR between the two groups. Another study showed that colibacillosis-related lesions were observed less frequently in the flock of birds vaccinated with both live attenuated Poulvac® and autogenous vaccines compared to the group vaccinated only with live attenuated vaccine, indicating some benefits of combining both vaccines in the field [73].
Risk of bias
In the evaluation of 39 papers reporting mortality data, the overall RoB revealed ‘‘some concerns” for the majority (n = 36, 92.3%) and ‘‘high risk” for a small fraction (n = 3, 7.7%) (Fig 3A). When examining seven studies that included FCR data, the overall RoB was evaluated as ‘‘unclear’ (Fig 3B). For mortality outcome, one study (2.6%) exhibited “high risk” of bias, one (2.6%) ‘‘low risk”, and 37 (94.8%) were assessed to have ‘‘unclear” (Fig 3B). The overall risk of bias of domains 3 to 5 was assessed as ‘‘low” for FCR. In both mortality and FCR, domains 1 and 2 emerged as the primary sources of bias. The overall bias arising from the randomization process (domain 1) recorded is mainly related to the lack of information concerning concealed allocation sequence of animals in the groups. For example, for mortality as outcome, only seven studies (n = 17.9%) provided this information. The concern with the result of the domain 2 (bias due to deviation from the intended intervention) is due to the absence of information concerning the awareness or not of animal caregivers/researchers about the assigned interventions and whether there were deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial. Again, only one study (n = 2.6%) provided these details in the papers with mortality as outcome.
Risk of Bias (RoB) in the E. coli vaccination studies that reported mortality (A) or feed conversion ratio (B) as one of the assessment parameters.
Meta-analysis
For the live attenuated vaccine, a total of twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis (Fig 4). All studies were performed after the year 2000 and the majority (83.3%) had an overall RoB assessed as “unclear”. When considering the effects on mortality, the comparison between the non-vaccinated and vaccinated groups showed a significant (P < 0.00001) trend favoring vaccination with a pooled odds ratio of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.19–0.48). A minimal but non-significant level of heterogeneity (P = 0.21; I2 = 24%) among studies was recorded. Due to the absence of a significant heterogeneity among included studies, the subgroup and meta-regression analysis were not performed. As presented in Fig 5, the six studies included in the meta-analysis of the CpG-ODN vaccine had an overall RoB assessed as ‘unclear’ and a high level of heterogeneity (P < 0.00001; I2 = 91%). The pooled odds ratio for mortality was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45–0.90). Due to the limited number of studies included, the sources of heterogeneity were not assessed.
The reporting bias was assessed only for the live attenuated vaccine efficacy considering the “mortality” as outcome because more than ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The funnel plot (Fig 6) and the Egger’s test results (Intercept = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.94 to 2.80], P = 0.69) showed a symmetry of the studies and a non-significant regression test, respectively, indicating an absence of publication bias (studies with no significant results) and validating the analysis as reasonable and reliable.
Outlook and conclusion
Colibacillosis in broiler chickens poses challenges for animal health and welfare, with serious economic consequences, impacting food safety and security, which can have a clear effect on consumers’ wellbeing and livelihoods. This systematic review examines the efficacy of various vaccines in preventing colibacillosis in broilers, revealing that, while some vaccine candidates have shown promising results, challenges and limitations remain that need to be addressed.
Killed and subunit vaccines, while being safe due to only exposing animals to fragments of the pathogen, have limited range of protection and require injections in birds. This ultimately raises concerns about the practicality and cost-effectiveness in commercial broiler production. On the other hand, even though live attenuated vaccines can be mass-applied through practical routes, such as drinking water or spray, rigorous safety assessments and investigations into potential long-term effects are still necessary.
In this study, meta-analysis was possible only for live-attenuated and CpG ODN vaccines, reflecting great heterogenicity among studies. While the analysis demonstrated a significant trend favoring these vaccination types in reducing mortality, there is a significant variation in challenge models used in vaccine research for E. coli infections, involving various routes of infection, predisposing factors, and a wide range of challenge doses. It shows the difficulty in reproducing the disease experimentally. Nevertheless, standardizing the challenge model is essential for consistent evaluation of vaccine candidates and comparison between studies [74]. Therefore, expanding the portfolio of E. coli vaccines, considering practical feasibility and serotype-independent protection, as well as establishing a robust infection model, are crucial. Field studies offer insights into the real-world vaccine effectiveness, yet the limited number of studies found in this systematic review highlights the need for more research, namely to evaluate vaccine efficacy in field conditions and assess additional parameters such as pathological consequences, economic impact and long-term protection.
Developing an effective vaccine against colibacillosis in chickens is complex due to the high heterogenicity of E. coli isolates, elusive disease mechanisms, and absence of definitive markers for pathogenic isolates [17, 20]. This complexity is evident in the limited number of vaccines reaching the commercial market, with conflicting reports about their effectiveness [53, 60].
Future vaccine development requires a multi-dimensional approach, focusing on identifying conserved antigens that confer broad protection across different APEC serotypes or incorporate antigens that confer broad protection across different APEC serogroups. Multivalent vaccines targeting multiple serogroups or incorporating diverse antigens may offer enhanced efficacy and broader coverage. Exploring innovative technology, such as irradiation [75] or glycoconjugate vaccines [76], may hold promise for improving vaccine delivery and bird protection against colibacillosis. Increased investment in research and development along with collaborative efforts between academic, industry and regulatory agencies, can expedite the translation of promising vaccine candidates into commercial products. Public-private partnerships and funding initiative can also incentivize vaccine development for diseases, such as colibacillosis, with significant impacts on animal health and economic sustainability. Despite providing valuable insights, this review has limitations. The focus was primarily on broiler production chain, excluding vaccine types and studies related to the E. coli vaccination in layer birds. Subgroup analysis was challenging due to variations in challenge models and experimental designs. The meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution considering the diversity of influencing factors and the reduced number of studies considered. Additionally, studies that did not include mortality, FCR and condemnation at slaughter as assessment criteria were excluded, although reproducing colibacillosis in experimentally infected birds is challenging, leading to exclusion of some vaccination studies in broilers.
In conclusion, while significant progress has been made in the development of E. coli vaccines for broilers, challenges persist. The benefits of vaccination have been demonstrated in several studies, with meta-analysis showing a positive effect of live attenuated and CpG-ODN vaccination in reducing mortality. However, further research is needed to enhance understanding of effective vaccines against colibacillosis, considering factors such as antigen selection, adjuvant choice, delivery method, and use of novel approaches.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Checklist for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses workflow.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301029.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Extracted metadata of studies included in the analyses of this paper.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301029.s002
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
This study was carried out within the COST Action CA18217 European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment (ENOVAT), supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) (www.enovat.eu and www.cost.eu). The authors wish to thank all participants supporting the COST Action CA18217—ENOVAT, particularly the members of the Working Group 4 (Antimicrobial treatment guidelines; https://enovat.eu/wg4/). The authors would also like to thank the whole ENOVAT Drafting Group “Veterinary guidelines on antimicrobial use in poultry colibacillosis” for the wise support and valuable expertise provided. A Swiss Government Excellent Scholarship was granted to RVN for the years 2020–21 when he started working in the Drafting Group.
References
- 1. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032. Paris 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/08801ab7-en.
- 2.
Paudel S, Hess M, Hess C. Advances in understanding bacterial diseases in poultry: challenges and perspectives In: Wit Sd, editor. Optimising poultry flock health First ed. Philadelphia, USA: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing 2022. p. 35–66.
- 3. Abdelhamid MK, Quijada NM, Dzieciol M, Hatfaludi T, Bilic I, Selberherr E, et al. Co-infection of Chicken Layers With Histomonas meleagridis and Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Is Associated With Dysbiosis, Cecal Colonization and Translocation of the Bacteria From the Gut Lumen. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:586437. Epub 20201030. pmid:33193238; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7661551.
- 4. Thomson NM, Gilroy R, Getino M, Foster-Nyarko E, van Vliet AHM, La Ragione RM, et al. Remarkable genomic diversity among Escherichia isolates recovered from healthy chickens. PeerJ. 2022;10:e12935. Epub 20220301. pmid:35251780; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8896058.
- 5.
Nolan LK, Vaillancourt JP, Barbieri NL, Logue CM. Colibacillosis. In: (Editor-in-Chief) DES, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th Edition ed: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2020. p. 770–830.
- 6. Landman WJ, van Eck JH. The incidence and economic impact of the Escherichia coli peritonitis syndrome in Dutch poultry farming. Avian Pathol. 2015;44(5):370–8. pmid:26083823.
- 7. Apostolakos I, Laconi A, Mughini-Gras L, Yapicier OS, Piccirillo A. Occurrence of Colibacillosis in Broilers and Its Relationship With Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Population Structure and Molecular Characteristics. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:737720. Epub 20210908. pmid:34568479; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8456121.
- 8. Gaussmann B, Hess C, Grafl B, Kovacs M, Troxler S, Stessl B, et al. Escherichia coli isolates from femoral bone marrow of broilers exhibit diverse pheno- and genotypic characteristics that do not correlate with macroscopic lesions of bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis. Avian Pathol. 2018;47(3):271–80. Epub 20180314. pmid:29451003.
- 9. Mageiros L, Meric G, Bayliss SC, Pensar J, Pascoe B, Mourkas E, et al. Genome evolution and the emergence of pathogenicity in avian Escherichia coli. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):765. Epub 20210203. pmid:33536414; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7858641.
- 10. Palmieri N, Apostolakos I, Paudel S, Hess M. The genetic network underlying the evolution of pathogenicity in avian Escherichia coli. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1195585. Epub 20230621. pmid:37415967; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10321414.
- 11. Dziva F, Stevens MP. Colibacillosis in poultry: unravelling the molecular basis of virulence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in their natural hosts. Avian Pathol. 2008;37(4):355–66. pmid:18622850.
- 12. Pires J, Huisman JS, Bonhoeffer S, Van Boeckel TP. Increase in antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli in food animals between 1980 and 2018 assessed using genomes from public databases. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77(3):646–55. pmid:34894245.
- 13. Zhang P, Shen Z, Zhang C, Song L, Wang B, Shang J, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance among Escherichia coli from chicken and swine, China, 2008–2015. Vet Microbiol. 2017;203:49–55. Epub 20170220. pmid:28619166.
- 14. Hess C, Troxler S, Jandreski-Cvetkovic D, Zloch A, Hess M. Escherichia coli Isolated from Organic Laying Hens Reveal a High Level of Antimicrobial Resistance despite No Antimicrobial Treatments. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(4). Epub 20220330. pmid:35453218; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9027956.
- 15. Han T, Zhang Q, Liu N, Wang J, Li Y, Huang X, et al. Changes in antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli during the broiler feeding cycle. Poult Sci. 2020;99(12):6983–9. Epub 20200801. pmid:33248614; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7704736.
- 16. EFSA, Health EPoA, Welfare., Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, et al. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Poultry. EFSA J. 2021;19(12):e07114. Epub 20211224. pmid:34987629; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8703241.
- 17. Ghunaim H, Abu-Madi MA, Kariyawasam S. Advances in vaccination against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli respiratory disease: potentials and limitations. Vet Microbiol. 2014;172(1–2):13–22. Epub 20140505. pmid:24878325.
- 18. Swelum AA, Elbestawy AR, El-Saadony MT, Hussein EOS, Alhotan R, Suliman GM, et al. Ways to minimize bacterial infections, with special reference to Escherichia coli, to cope with the first-week mortality in chicks: an updated overview. Poult Sci. 2021;100(5):101039. Epub 20210211. pmid:33752065; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8010699.
- 19. Christensen H, Bachmeier J, Bisgaard M. New strategies to prevent and control avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Avian Pathol. 2021;50(5):370–81. Epub 20210203. pmid:33146543.
- 20. Kathayat D, Lokesh D, Ranjit S, Rajashekara G. Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC): An Overview of Virulence and Pathogenesis Factors, Zoonotic Potential, and Control Strategies. Pathogens. 2021;10(4). Epub 20210412. pmid:33921518; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8069529.
- 21. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (available at http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook). 2022.
- 22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. Epub 20210329. pmid:33782057; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8005924.
- 23. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):245. Epub 20171206. pmid:29208034; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5718002.
- 24. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. Epub 20161205. pmid:27919275; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5139140.
- 25. Sargeant JM, Bergevin MD, Churchill K, Dawkins K, Deb B, Dunn J, et al. The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review. Anim Health Res Rev. 2019;20(2):263–73. pmid:32081126.
- 26. Bueno I, Ricke I, Hwang H, Smith E, Nault A, Johnson TJ, et al. Efficacy of Antibiotic and Non-antibiotic Interventions in Preventing and Treating Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens: A Systematic Review. Avian Dis. 2023;67(1):20–32. pmid:37140108.
- 27. Abdul-Aziz TA, el-Sukhon SN. Chickens hyperimmunized with Escherichia coli J5 strain are protected against experimental challenge with Escherichia coli O78 serotype. Vet Res Commun. 1998;22(1):7–9. pmid:9541985.
- 28. Ibrahim AI, Elattar AA, E—Shahidy MS. Studies on E. coli isolates from respiratory affected broilers and protection evaluation of different prepared bacterins Assiut Veterinary Medical Journal. 1997;37(74):152–62.
- 29. Sayed MFE, Soliman RA, Ghanem HM, Khedr MMS, Mohamed GM, Safty M. Trials for preparation and evaluation of a combined inactivated reassorted H5N1 and Escherichia coli O157 vaccine in poultry. Vet World. 2021;14(6):1677–81. Epub 20210628. pmid:34316218; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8304417.
- 30. Keita A, Le Devendec L, Amelot M, Puterflam J, Lucas C, Bougeard S, et al. Efficacy of passive immunization in broiler chicks via an inactivated Escherichia coli autogenous vaccine administered to broiler breeder hens. Avian Pathol. 2022;51(5):445–56. Epub 20220805. pmid:35634647.
- 31. Fuhrmann L, Zentek J, Vahjen W, Gunther R, Saliu EM. Effects of a Specific Pre- and Probiotic Combination and Parent Stock Vaccination on Performance and Bacterial Communities in Broilers Challenged with a Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(12). Epub 20221126. pmid:36551360; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9774208.
- 32. Clark TG, Cassidy-Hanley D. Recombinant subunit vaccines: potentials and constraints. Dev Biol (Basel). 2005;121:153–63. pmid:15962478.
- 33. Vandemaele F, Bleyen N, Abuaboud O, vanderMeer E, Jacobs A, Goddeeris BM. Immunization with the biologically active lectin domain of PapGII induces strong adhesion-inhibiting antibody responses but not protection against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Avian Pathol. 2006;35(3):238–49. pmid:16753616.
- 34. Vandemaele F, Ververken C, Bleyen N, Geys J, D’Hulst C, Addwebi T, et al. Immunization with the binding domain of FimH, the adhesin of type 1 fimbriae, does not protect chickens against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Avian Pathol. 2005;34(3):264–72. pmid:16191712.
- 35. Lynne AM, Kariyawasam S, Wannemuehler Y, Johnson TJ, Johnson SJ, Sinha AS, et al. Recombinant Iss as a potential vaccine for avian colibacillosis. Avian Dis. 2012;56(1):192–9. pmid:22545546.
- 36. Chaudhari AA, Matsuda K, Lee JH. Construction of an attenuated Salmonella delivery system harboring genes encoding various virulence factors of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli and its potential as a candidate vaccine for chicken colibacillosis. Avian Dis. 2013;57(1):88–96. pmid:23678735.
- 37. Chaudhari AA, Lee JH. Evaluation of the adjuvant effect of Salmonella-based Escherichia coli heat-labile toxin B subunits on the efficacy of a live Salmonella-delivered avian pathogenic Escherichia coli vaccine. Avian Pathol. 2013;42(4):365–72. Epub 20130701. pmid:23815619.
- 38. Ma ST, Ding GJ, Huang XW, Wang ZW, Wang L, Yu ML, et al. Immunogenicity in chickens with orally administered recombinant chicken-borne Lactobacillus saerimneri expressing FimA and OmpC antigen of O78 avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. J Med Microbiol. 2018;67(3):441–51. Epub 20180119. pmid:29458539.
- 39. Dissanayake DRA, Wijewardana TG, Gunawardena GA, Poxton IR. Potential use of a liposome-encapsulated mixture of lipopolysaccharide core types (R1, R2, R3 and R4) of Escherichia coli in controlling colisepticaemia in chickens. J Med Microbiol. 2010;59(Pt 1):100–7. pmid:19797465.
- 40. Tuntufye HN, Ons E, Pham AD, Luyten T, Van Gerven N, Bleyen N, et al. Escherichia coli ghosts or live E. coli expressing the ferri-siderophore receptors FepA, FhuE, IroN and IutA do not protect broiler chickens against avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC). Vet Microbiol. 2012;159(3–4):470–8. Epub 20120509. pmid:22633153.
- 41. Micoli F, MacLennan CA. Outer membrane vesicle vaccines. Semin Immunol. 2020;50:101433. Epub 20201209. pmid:33309166.
- 42. Hu R, Liu H, Wang M, Li J, Lin H, Liang M, et al. An OMV-Based Nanovaccine Confers Safety and Protection against Pathogenic Escherichia coli via Both Humoral and Predominantly Th1 Immune Responses in Poultry. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020;10(11). Epub 20201120. pmid:33233490; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7699605.
- 43. Hu R, Li J, Zhao Y, Lin H, Liang L, Wang M, et al. Exploiting bacterial outer membrane vesicles as a cross-protective vaccine candidate against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Microb Cell Fact. 2020;19(1):119. Epub 20200603. pmid:32493405; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7268718.
- 44. Barbieri NL, de Oliveira AL, Tejkowski TM, Pavanelo DB, Rocha DA, Matter LB, et al. Genotypes and pathogenicity of cellulitis isolates reveal traits that modulate APEC virulence. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e72322. Epub 20130819. pmid:23977279; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3747128.
- 45. Pati R, Shevtsov M, Sonawane A. Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2224. Epub 20181004. pmid:30337923; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6180194.
- 46. Mohammed GM, ElZorkany HE, Farroh KY, Abd El-Aziz WR, Elshoky HA. Potential improvement of the immune response of chickens against E. coli vaccine by using two forms of chitosan nanoparticles. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;167:395–404. Epub 20201201. pmid:33275976.
- 47. Abd El-Aziz WR, Ibrahim HM, Elzorkany HE, Mohammed GM, Mikhael CA, Fathy NA, et al. Evaluation of cell-mediated immunity of E.coli nanovaccines in chickens. J Immunol Methods. 2022;506:113280. Epub 20220513. pmid:35577101.
- 48. Frommer A, Freidlin PJ, Bock RR, Leitner G, Chaffer M, Heller ED. Experimental vaccination of young chickens with a live, non-pathogenic strain of Escherichia coli. Avian Pathol. 1994;23(3):425–33. pmid:18671110.
- 49. Kariyawasam S, Wilkie BN, Hunter DB, Gyles CL. Systemic and mucosal antibody responses to selected cell surface antigens of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in experimentally infected chickens. Avian Dis. 2002;46(3):668–78. pmid:12243531.
- 50. Peighambari SM, Hunter DB, Shewen PE, Gyles CL. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of two Escherichia coli cya crp mutants as vaccines for broilers. Avian Dis. 2002;46(2):287–97. pmid:12061637.
- 51. Kariyawasam S, Wilkie BN, Gyles CL. Construction, characterization, and evaluation of the vaccine potential of three genetically defined mutants of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Avian Dis. 2004;48(2):287–99. pmid:15283416.
- 52. Asaad HM, Amen O, Elazeem MA, Saif-Edin M. Comparative study on commercial vaccines against E. coli in broiler chickens Assiut Veterinary Medical Journal 2019;65:22–9.
- 53. El-Mawgoud AIA, El-Nahass ES, Shany SAS, El-Sawah AA, Dahshan AM, Nasef SA, et al. Efficacy of Live Attenuated Vaccine and Commercially Available Lectin Against Avian Pathogenic E. coli Infection in Broiler Chickens. Vet Sci. 2020;7(2). Epub 20200513. pmid:32414109; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7355798.
- 54. Sadeghi M, Tavakkoli H, Golchin M, Ghanbarpour R, Amanollahi S. Efficacy and safety of Poulvac E. coli vaccine in broiler chickens challenged with E. coli serotype O78 and an acute field isolate. Comparative Clinical Pathology 2018;27:1629–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-018-2784-4.
- 55. Galal HM, Tawfek AM, Abdrabou MI, Hessain AM, Alhaaji JH, Kabli SA, et al. Recent approaches for control of E. coli and respiratory complex in Middle East. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2018;25(7):1302–7. Epub 20180403. pmid:30505174; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6252003.
- 56. Mohammed MA, Bakhit BM, Ibrahim AA, Saleh M. Evaluation of the living Escherichia coli-O78 deleted aroA vaccine against homologous and heterologous E. coli challenge in broiler chickens. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research 2016;6(3):89–92.
- 57. Gharib AA, Hamouda AM, Abdel-Wahab AAM, Fawzy MF. Protective Efficacy of a Commercial Live Attenuated aroA mutant Vaccine Against Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Challenge in Broilers Zagazig Veterinary Journal 2017;45(4).
- 58. Tarabees R, El-Sayed MS, Shehata AA, Diab MS. Effects of the Probiotic Candidate E. faecalis-1, the Poulvac E. coli Vaccine, and their Combination on Growth Performance, Caecal Microbial Composition, Immune Response, and Protection against E. coli O78 Challenge in Broiler Chickens. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2020;12(3):860–72. pmid:31650414.
- 59. Rawiwet V, Chansiripornchai N. The Efficacy of Escherichia coli AroA-Live Vaccine inBroilers against Avian E. coli Serotype O78 Infection. Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine 2009;39(4):337–42.
- 60. Elbestawy AR, Ellakany HF, Abd El-Hamid HS, Ibrahim MS, Gado AR, Mustafa NS, et al. Comparative evaluation of a live E. coli vaccine and cefotaxime treatment against three E. coli serotypes in broilers. Journal of King Saud University—Science. 2021;33(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101353.
- 61. Galal HM, Abdrabou MI, Faraag AHI, Mah CK, Tawfek AM. Evaluation of commercially available aroA delated gene E. coli O78 vaccine in commercial broiler chickens under Middle East simulating field conditions. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1938. Epub 20210121. pmid:33479449; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7820230.
- 62. Fernandes Filho T, Favaro C Jr., Ingberman M, Beirao BC, Inoue A, Gomes L, et al. Effect of spray Escherichia coli vaccine on the immunity of poultry. Avian Dis. 2013;57(3):671–6. pmid:24283136.
- 63. Li L, Thofner I, Christensen JP, Ronco T, Pedersen K, Olsen RH. Evaluation of the efficacy of an autogenous Escherichia coli vaccine in broiler breeders. Avian Pathol. 2017;46(3):300–8. Epub 20170320. pmid:27982712.
- 64. Klinman DM, Klaschik S, Sato T, Tross D. CpG oligonucleotides as adjuvants for vaccines targeting infectious diseases. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61(3):248–55. Epub 20090114. pmid:19272313.
- 65. Gunawardana T, Ahmed KA, Goonewardene K, Popowich S, Kurukulasuriya S, Karunarathna R, et al. Synthetic CpG-ODN rapidly enriches immune compartments in neonatal chicks to induce protective immunity against bacterial infections. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):341. Epub 20190123. pmid:30674918; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6344490.
- 66. Taghavi A, Allan B, Mutwiri G, Foldvari M, Van Kessel A, Willson P, et al. Enhancement of immunoprotective effect of CpG-ODN by formulation with polyphosphazenes against E. coli septicemia in neonatal chickens. Curr Drug Deliv. 2009;6(1):76–82. pmid:19418959.
- 67. Gomis S, Babiuk L, Allan B, Willson P, Waters E, Ambrose N, et al. Protection of neonatal chicks against a lethal challenge of Escherichia coli using DNA containing cytosine-phosphodiester-guanine motifs. Avian Dis. 2004;48(4):813–22. pmid:15666862.
- 68. Allan B, Wheler C, Koster W, Sarfraz M, Potter A, Gerdts V, et al. In Ovo Administration of Innate Immune Stimulants and Protection from Early Chick Mortalities due to Yolk Sac Infection. Avian Dis. 2018;62(3):316–21. pmid:30339510.
- 69. Sarfraz M, Nguyen TTT, Wheler C, Koster W, Gerdts V, Dar A. Characterization of Dosage Levels for In Ovo Administration of Innate Immune Stimulants for Prevention of Yolk Sac Infection in Chicks. Vet Sci. 2022;9(5). Epub 20220422. pmid:35622731; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9142911.
- 70. Goonewardene KB, Popowich S, Gunawardana T, Gupta A, Kurukulasuriya S, Karunarathna R, et al. Intrapulmonary Delivery of CpG-ODN Microdroplets Provides Protection Against Escherichia coli Septicemia in Neonatal Broiler Chickens. Avian Dis. 2017;61(4):503–11. pmid:29337617.
- 71. Gregersen RH, Christensen H, Ewers C, Bisgaard M. Impact of Escherichia coli vaccine on parent stock mortality, first week mortality of broilers and population diversity of E. coli in vaccinated flocks. Avian Pathol. 2010;39(4):287–95. pmid:20706885.
- 72. Mombarg M, Bouzoubaa K, Andrews S, Vanimisetti HB, Rodenberg J, Karaca K. Safety and efficacy of an aroA-deleted live vaccine against avian colibacillosis in a multicentre field trial in broilers in Morocco. Avian Pathol. 2014;43(3):276–81. pmid:24824589.
- 73. Šenk D, Papoušková A, Masaříková M, Palkovičová J, Čížek A. Impact of commercial and autogenous Escherichia coli vaccine combination on broiler breeder stock performance, gross pathology, and diversity of Escherichia coli isolates. ACTA VET BRNO. 2022;91:383–90. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb202291040383.
- 74. Paudel S, Fink D, Abdelhamid MK, Zöggeler A, Liebhart D, Hess M, et al. Aerosol is the optimal route of respiratory tract infection to induce pathological lesions of colibacillosis by a lux-tagged avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in chickens. Avian Pathology. 2021;50(5):417–26. WOS:000703401400001. pmid:34505551
- 75. Paudel S, Hess C, Kamal Abdelhamid M, Lyrakis M, Wijewardana V, Thiga Kangethe R, et al. Aerosol delivered irradiated Escherichia coli confers serotype-independent protection and prevents colibacillosis in young chickens. Vaccine. 2023;41(7):1342–53. Epub 20230113. pmid:36642629.
- 76. Smith AA, Corona-Torres R, Hewitt RE, Stevens MP, Grant AJ, Glycoengineering of Veterinary Vaccines C. Modification of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli chi7122 lipopolysaccharide increases accessibility to glycoconjugate antigens. Microb Cell Fact. 2022;21(1):181. Epub 20220907. pmid:36071433; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9449299.