Veterinary Medicine International 3 Table 2: The antibody response in SLS-treated and vaccinated chickens. Group (dose) HI titer on diﬀerent days after primary immunization (log2) 10 d 17 d 24 d 31 d 38 d 45 d SLS (4 mg/kg) 5.31 ± 0.25 6.02 ± 0.45 6.87 ± 0.27 7.68 ± 0.33∗ 7.06 ± 0.41 6.53 ± 0.28 SLS (2 mg/kg) 5.72 ± 0.19 6.83 ± 0.33∗ 7.46 ± 0.49∗ 8.79 ± 0.11∗ 8.87 ± 0.52∗ 8.15 ± 0.19∗ SLS (1 mg/kg) 5.11 ± 0.32 6.21 ± 0.42 6.75 ± 0.32 8.02 ± 0.29∗ 7.46 ± 0.54 6.92 ± 0.16 Normal saline 4.71 ± 0.37 5.12 ± 0.39 5.51 ± 0.37 6.03 ± 0.24 6.14 ± 0.21 5.83 ± 0.31 The data are expressed as mean ± SD (day 10, n = 36; day 17, n = 30; day 24, n = 24; day 31, n = 18; day 38, n = 12; day 45, n = 6) in relation to the HI titers of chickens. ∗P < .05 was accepted as signiﬁcant diﬀerences compared to the normal saline control group. Table 3: The CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio in PBMCs of SLS-treated and vaccinated chickens. Group (dose) CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio on diﬀerent days after primary immunization 10 d 17 d 24 d 31 d 38 d 45 d SLS (4 mg/kg) 2.15 ± 0.22 2.31 ± 0.25 2.48 ± 0.22 3.29 ± 0.27∗ 2.94 ± 0.21∗ 2.46 ± 0.21 SLS (2 mg/kg) 2.21 ± 0.28 2.49 ± 0.23 2.80 ± 0.17∗ 3.57 ± 0.31∗ 3.50 ± 0.19∗ 3.21 ± 0.24∗ SLS (1 mg/kg) 2.13 ± 0.16 2.24 ± 0.22 2.45 ± 0.25 3.41 ± 0.19∗ 3.10 ± 0.14∗ 2.47 ± 0.22 Normal saline 2.10 ± 0.23 2.16 ± 0.29 2.19 ± 0.11 2.30 ± 0.23 2.25 ± 0.25 2.11 ± 0.32 The data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6) in relation to the CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio of chickens. ∗P < .05 was accepted as signiﬁcant diﬀerences compared to the normal saline control group. Table 4: Inﬂuence of SLS on immune organ indices of NDV-vaccinated chickens. Organs Group (dose) 10 d SLS (4 mg/kg) 0.335 ± 0.015 Thymus SLS (2 mg/kg) 0.327 ± 0.027 SLS (1 mg/kg) 0.333 ± 0.028 Normal saline 0.328 ± 0.025 SLS (4 mg/kg) 0.163 ± 0.018 Spleen SLS (2 mg/kg) 0.169 ± 0.019 SLS (1 mg/kg) 0.160 ± 0.029 Normal saline 0.163 ± 0.016 SLS (4 mg/kg) 0.331 ± 0.031 Cloacal bursa SLS (2 mg/kg) 0.329 ± 0.030 SLS (1 mg/kg) 0.330 ± 0.026 Normal saline 0.332 ± 0.019 The data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). 17 d 0.351 ± 0.026 0.352 ± 0.023 0.359 ± 0.016 0.357 ± 0.025 0.222 ± 0.025 0.226 ± 0.021 0.223 ± 0.026 0.224 ± 0.013 0.354 ± 0.027 0.357 ± 0.029 0.355 ± 0.031 0.352 ± 0.022 Organ index 24 d 0.384 ± 0.021 0.383 ± 0.029 0.380 ± 0.028 0.380 ± 0.014 0.265 ± 0.023 0.270 ± 0.012 0.264 ± 0.019 0.266 ± 0.011 0.373 ± 0.025 0.369 ± 0.033 0.371 ± 0.037 0.370 ± 0.027 31 d 0.366 ± 0.022 0.368 ± 0.019 0.365 ± 0.031 0.364 ± 0.023 0.270 ± 0.027 0.276 ± 0.018 0.273 ± 0.022 0.274 ± 0.027 0.355 ± 0.022 0.368 ± 0.028 0.363 ± 0.032 0.355 ± 0.028 38 d 0.360 ± 0.024 0.361 ± 0.021 0.363 ± 0.026 0.362 ± 0.024 0.242 ± 0.020 0.246 ± 0.017 0.243 ± 0.016 0.244 ± 0.015 0.349 ± 0.021 0.359 ± 0.025 0.357 ± 0.029 0.348 ± 0.024 45 d 0.335 ± 0.015 0.327 ± 0.027 0.333 ± 0.028 0.328 ± 0.025 0.232 ± 0.017 0.269 ± 0.016 0.230 ± 0.019 0.234 ± 0.014 0.321 ± 0.022 0.325 ± 0.023 0.328 ± 0.024 0.331 ± 0.017 Table 5: Anti-immunosuppressive eﬀect of SLS on thiamphenicol. Group HI titer on diﬀerent days after immunization (log2) 10 d 17 d 24 d 31 d 38 d 45 d SLS+Florfenicol 4.82 ± 0.29 5.09 ± 0.19 5.46 ± 0.24 6.26 ± 0.19 6.76 ± 0.24 6.43 ± 0.19 Florfenicol 3.01 ± 0.21∗ 3.43 ± 0.13∗ 3.83 ± 0.28∗ 4.06 ± 0.33∗ 3.96 ± 0.28∗ 3.83 ± 0.33∗ Saline 4.52 ± 0.35 5.05 ± 0.36 5.61 ± 0.34 6.07 ± 0.24 6.21 ± 0.21 5.82 ± 0.31 The data are expressed as mean ± SD (day 10, n = 36; day 17, n = 30; day 24, n = 24; day 31, n = 18; day 38, n = 12; day 45, n = 6) in relation to the HI titers of chickens. ∗P < .05 was accepted as signiﬁcant diﬀerences compared to the saline control group. Table 6: Inﬂuence of SLS on CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio of thiamphenicol-treated chickens. Group CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio 10 d 17 d 24 d 31 d 38 d 45 d SLS+Florfenicol 2.15 ± 0.23 2.24 ± 0.19 2.61 ± 0.17 3.01 ± 0.18∗ 2.98 ± 0.24∗ 2.74 ± 0.21∗ Florfenicol 2.01 ± 0.19 2.02 ± 0.24 2.02 ± 0.27 2.04 ± 0.23 2.03 ± 0.27 2.00 ± 0.22 Saline 2.09 ± 0.22 2.18 ± 0.27 2.19 ± 0.15 2.30 ± 0.23 2.23 ± 0.24 2.11 ± 0.31 The data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6) in relation to the CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio of chickens. ∗P < .05 was accepted as signiﬁcant diﬀerences compared to the saline control group.