Table 4.
Bird ID | Dose* | DPI 0 | DPI 1 | DPI 2 | DPI 3 | DPI 4 | DPI 5 | DPI 6 | DPI 7 | DPI 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | Control | –** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
70 | Control | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
7 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
9 | 2 | – | 38·09*** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
11 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
16 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
20 | 2 | – | 39·51*** | – | – | –c | – | –c | – | – |
51 | 2 | – | 38·23*** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
52 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
59 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
53 | 4 | – | – | 37·6 | 37·85† | 32·46† | – | –c | – | – |
54 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
67 | 4 | – | 30·1† | 30·08† | 34·18c | – | – | – | – | – |
66 | 4 | – | – | 33·85 | 33·99 | – | 37·82 | – | – | – |
57 | 6 | – | – | – | – | 39·79 | 37·56 | – | – | – |
58 | 6 | – | 34·95 | 37·21 | 36·26 | 34·64 | 38·24 | – | – | – |
60 | 6 | – | 33·85 | 35·2 | 38·63 | – | – | – | – | – |
62 | 6 | – | 37·11 | 35·4 | 32·55 | – | – | 38·93 | – | 39·7 |
4 | 6 | – | 30·89c | 32·1 | 35·54 | – | – | – | – | – |
69 | 6 | – | 30·8c | 36·64 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
DPI, days post‐inoculation.
*Inocula doses expressed as Log10 EID50/100 μl. No bird inoculated with lower viral titers became infected based on viral excretion and seroconversion (not shown).
**C t values are from RT‐PCR analyses using avian influenza H5 specific primers and probe. Samples with no C t values are shown with –. cIndicates that RT‐PCR positive cloacal swabs were detected on the DPI shown.
***The presence of viral RNA detected on DPI1 only was assumed to be residual inoculum.
†Presence of viable virus confirmed by virus isolation in embryonating egg culture.