Aerosol Transmission of an Avian Influenza H9N2 Virus with a Tropism for the Respiratory Tract of Chickens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAI H9N2) was administered to 3-wk-old chickens by aerosol exposure, intranasal inoculation, and by oral inoculation. Tests for virus were by in ovo assay and by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR. The aerosol dosage was determined by aerosolizing virus into a chamber when it was empty and when it contained chickens. Air was collected and the amount of virus inhaled was estimated to be about 18% of the total body uptake. In transmission studies, tests for virus were conducted on oropharyngeal or cloacal swabs. The 50% infectious dose (ID50) for aerosolized virus was about 2 log 10 and 5 log 10 lower than by nasal or oral inoculation, respectively. The recovery rate was higher from swabs of the oropharyngeal region than from the cloacal region (P < 0.05). For horizontal transmission studies, uninfected chickens were held in isolators with seeders that had been inoculated intranasally with the H9N2 virus. Chickens exposed by indirect contact were separated by screens from the seeders. In another isolator those directly exposed were intermingled with the seeders. During the 10-day test period, none of the chickens developed symptoms of disease, but infection was detected as early as 4 and 7 days in the indirectly and directly exposed groups, respectively. These findings suggested that aerosol transmission of viruses similar to LPAI H9N2 could efficiently occur, at least over short distances.Transmisión por aerosol del virus de la influenza aviar H9N2 con tropismo por el tracto respiratorio de los pollos.Un virus de la influenza aviar de baja patogenicidad (influenza aviar de baja patogenicidad H9N2) se administró a pollos de tres semanas de edad mediante exposición a aerosoles, o por inoculación intranasal, o por inoculación oral. Se realizaron pruebas para detectar virus por ensayo in ovo y por transcriptasa reversa y PCR en tiempo real. La dosis de aerosol se determinó mediante aerosolización del virus dentro de una cámara cuando estaba vacía y cuando contenía pollos. Se recolectó aire y la cantidad de virus inhalado se estimó ser de alrededor del 18% del total inhalado por el cuerpo. En los estudios de transmisión, se llevaron a cabo pruebas para detectar el virus de hisopados orofaríngeos y cloacales. La dosis infecciosa 50% (ID50) para el virus en aerosol fue menor en 2 log10 y en 5 log10 en comparación con la inoculación nasal u oral, respectivamente. La tasa de recuperación fue mayor a partir de hisopos de la región orofaríngea que de la región cloacal (P < 0.05). Para los estudios de transmisión horizontal, se mantuvieron pollos no infectados en unidades de aislamiento con pollos infectados y diseminadores que habían sido inoculados por vía intranasal con el virus H9N2. Los pollos expuestos por contacto indirecto fueron separados de los pollos diseminadores mediante mallas. En otro aislador, las aves expuestas directamente fueron alojadas junto con las aves diseminadoras. Durante el período de prueba de 10 días, ninguno de los pollos desarrolló síntomas de la enfermedad, pero la infección se detectó tan pronto como cuatro y siete días en los grupos expuestos de manera indirecta y directa, respectivamente. Estos hallazgos sugieren que la transmisión por aerosol de virus similares al virus de la influenza aviar de baja patogenicidad H9N2, pueden ocurrir eficientemente al menos en distancias cortas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it