HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roy, P. Articles by Dhillon, A. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Roy, P. Articles by Dhillon, A. S.

Counterimmunoelectrophoresis for Diagnosis of Infectious Bursal Disease: Comparative Efficacy of Three Different Electrophoresis Buffers

P. Roy^*,1, A. Raja^*,1 and A. S. Dhillon^,2

^* Avian Disease Laboratory, Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, India; and Avian Health and Food Safety Laboratory, Washington State University, 7613 Pioneer Way East, Puyallup 98371

Correspondence: ² Corresponding author: asdhillon{at}wsu.edu

The bursas of Fabricius of 48 broiler chickens (meat type) of age groups 3 to 7 wk, affected with infectious bursal disease (IBD) were tested by counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIE) by using 3 different buffers, namely, barbital buffer, Tris-glacial acetic acid-EDTA (TAE) buffer, and Tris-boric acid-EDTA buffer. Eighty-five percent of the samples were positive when the TAE buffer was used, whereas the Tris-boric acid-EDTA and barbital buffers yielded 81% positive test results. The barbital buffer, which is commonly used in CIE for diagnosis of IBD, is not readily available and is considered carcinogenic. The TAE buffer was found to be safe and was a superior buffer for diagnosing IBD in a CIE test.

Key Words: infectious bursal disease • diagnosis • counterimmunoelectrophoresis • counterimmunoelectrophoresis buffer

¹ Present address: Madras Veterinary College, Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, India.