Chief Editor:

M. R. Saseendranath

Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University, Mannuthy, Thrissur, INDIA

Frequency:Monthly

Indexing:

Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, ...

GENETICS OF POST HATCHING SURVIVAL POTENTIAL OF CHICKS OF HIGHLY PRODUCTNE LAYER LINES INFECTED AS EMBRYOS BY SUBGROUP A &C ROUS SARCOMA VIRUS

A.K. Ghosh··, P.K. Pani

Affiliations

¹Indian Veterinary Research Institute, lzatnagar - 243122, Bareilly, India

Submitted|
First Online |
doi

Cite article:- Ghosh·· A.K., Pani P.K. (2025). GENETICS OF POST HATCHING SURVIVAL POTENTIAL OF CHICKS OF HIGHLY PRODUCTNE LAYER LINES INFECTED AS EMBRYOS BY SUBGROUP A &C ROUS SARCOMA VIRUS. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 38(1): 33 - 36. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Eleven-day-old embryos of IWJ, IWG and IWC lines were inoculated with subgroup A and C Rous sarcoma virus (RSV) separately, via the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) route. The infected embryos were hatched for collection of data on liver tumour (LT) deaths. The survival time was comparatively longer in IWJ line than that of IWC line, irrespective of virus subgroup infection. The mean days of survival was longer in the low pock count range (PCR) than in high PCR regardless of lines and virus subgroups. For subgroup A infection, the distance of mean days of survival was 8.31 days, in the range of 13.50 to 5.19 days with a median of 9.35 days; while for subgroup C infection 6.33 days, in the range of 12.81 to 6.48 days with a median of 6.65 days. However, once the pock count exceeded 1.40 log in the embryonic CAM, the chicks hatched from these eggs regardless of lines died of LT very fast within one week for both subgroups, A and C infection. Further analysis of data taking line, sex and PCR provided strong evidence that except the PCR factor, the other two factors did not influence the survival potential of LT(+) chicks. The interaction effect was not significant either, indicating the specificity of LT death as dictated only by PCR factor

KEYWORDS

REFERENCES

Crittenden, L.B. et aJ. (1972). Poult. Sci., 51: 242.
Dougherty, R.M. etal (1960). Virology., 11: 349.
Ghosh, A.K. and Pani, P.K. (2002)./ndianJ. Exp. Bioi., 40: 144-150.
Mehta, S.C. (1990). M.V.Sc. Thesis, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (UP), India.
Pani, P.K. and Naithani, S. (1990). Avian Pathol, 19: 669.
Pani, P.K. et ai. (1988). Avian Pathol, 17: 533.
Purchase, H.G. ancI Burmester, B.R. (1972). Diseases of Poultry. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press. 302p.
Rout, P.K. et aJ. (1992). lkt /mmo. lrnmunopath., 33: 89-102.
Vigier, P. (1959). V7rology., 8: 41

Disclaimer :

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Copyright :

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.