↓ Skip to main content

Effect of housing arrangement on fecal-oral transmission of avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of housing arrangement on fecal-oral transmission of avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1203-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baoyuan Liu, Yani Sun, Yiyang Chen, Taofeng Du, Yuchen Nan, Xinjie Wang, Huixia Li, Baicheng Huang, Gaiping Zhang, En-Min Zhou, Qin Zhao

Abstract

Avian hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is common in chicken flocks in China, as currently no measures exist to prevent the spread of the disease. In this study, we analyzed the effect of caged versus cage-free housing arrangements on avian HEV transmission. First, 127 serum and 110 clinical fecal samples were collected from 4 chicken flocks including the two arrangements in Shaanxi Province, China and tested for HEV antibodies and/or virus. Concurrently, 36 specific-pathogen-free chickens were divided equally into four experimental living arrangement groups, designated cage-free (Inoculated), caged (Inoculated), cage-free (Negative) and caged (Negative) groups. In caged groups, three cages contained 3 chickens each. Three chickens each from cage-free (Inoculated) and caged (Inoculated) groups (one chicken of each cage) were inoculated by cutaneous ulnar vein with the same dose of avian HEV, respectively. The cage-free (Negative) and caged (Negative) groups served as negative control. Serum and fecal samples were collected at 1 to 7 weeks post-inoculation (wpi) and liver lesions were scored at 7 wpi. The results of serology showed that the avian HEV infection rate (54.10%) of the cage-free chickens was significantly higher than the one (12.12%) for caged chickens (P < 0.05). Also, the rate of detection of avian HEV RNA in the clinical fecal samples was significantly higher in the cage-free (22.80%, 13/57) than caged birds (5.66%, 3/53). Moreover, under experimental conditions, the infected number of uninoculated cage-free chickens (6) was significantly higher than the one for the uninoculated caged birds (2), as evidenced by seroconversion, fecal virus shedding, viremia and gross and microscopic liver lesions. These results suggest that reduction of contact with feces as seen in the caged arrangement of housing chickens can reduce avian HEV transmission. This study provides insights for prevention and control of avian HEV infection in chicken flocks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 36%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 29%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2017.
All research outputs
#9,452,382
of 11,830,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,066
of 1,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,131
of 265,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#32
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,830,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.