AVIAN DISEASES vol. 24 no.

Guest Editorial
Historical Note
on the Origin of the LaSota Strain
of Newcastle Disease Virus
Tevis M. Goldhaft
2245 E a s t Landis Avenue
Vineland, New Jersey 08360

Received 1 October 1979

I t has been more than thirty years since live-virus Newcastle

disease vaccines were introduced for use in poultry production. One
aspect of the situation has never been reported: the complete his-
tory of the LaSota strain of vaccine virus, now used throughout the
world. The writer is the last person alive who had intimate knowl-
edge of the situation; the others were Dr. Fred R. Beaudette, Dr.
Arthur D. Goldhaft, Dr. Nathan E. Wernicoff, and Charles B.
Hudson.
I n 1975, Dr. Stephen B. Hitchner ( 4 ) published a paper on the
discovery of the B1 strain of Newcastle disease virus. I then wrote
to him about some of his statements and assumptions. I tried to
provide him with background information on the other side of the
coin, i.e., some of the attitudes, statements, and action of Dr. F.
Beaudette.
I had worked closely with Dr. Beaudette and his assistant
Charles Hudson from 1932 until both of their deaths. Our company,
Vineland Poultry Laboratories, was the first t o produce laryn-
gotracheitis vaccine, developed by Beaudette and Hudson in 1932
( 1 ) . We held a n agreement with the New Jersey Agricultural Ex-
periment Station under which we paid royalties on sale of the
product and in return were able to utilize Beaudette and Hudson
a s consultants on and overseers of the product we manufactured
and sold.
When the respiratory and nervous disorder was determined to
be Newcastle disease, many researchers began a search for virus
strains that would be adaptable for live-virus vaccine production.
Killed vaccines, on the market in a variety of forms, were of in-
adequate effectiveness.
Dr. Beaudette screened 105 strains of Newcastle disease virus
( 3 ) and had determined that the Roakin strain offered the best
298 Tevis M. Goldhaft

hope of being a n effective immunizing product with least potential

danger to the animal. In the late spring of 1948 our com-
pany introduced the first Roakin-strain live-virus Newcastle dis-
ease vaccine. Simultaneously, Lederle Laboratories Division of the
American Cyanamid Corporation introduced a similar product
based on a strain from Dr. Van Roekel in Massachusetts. Both
products were administered by the wing-web method, and demand
for them was often greater than the productive capacity of the
two companies a t t h a t time.
Both products were for use on birds no less than four weeks
old. Dr. Beaudette was adamant that earlier vaccination would
produce poor immunity, and, further, t h a t parental immunity
would seriously interfere with the production and quality of the
resultant immunity. In any case, there was considerable evidence
that both the Roakin and Van Roekel strains would result in
deaths and paralysis if administered to birds under 4 weeks old.
In 1948, Hitchner and Johnson ( 5 ) reported on a Newcastle
disease strain of low virulence for immunizing fowls against New-
castle disease. Dr. Hitchner had requested some strains of various
viruses from Dr. Beaudette, and one of them, labeled bronchitis
virus, turned out to be a Newcastle disease virus, known today a s
the B1 strain. Those who remember that period will recall that Dr.
Beaudette was firm in his conviction that no error had been made
in his laboratory and that any Newcastle disease virus found had
to have come from errors or contamination in the recipient's lab-
oratory.
To complicate the matter further, Dr. Hitchner recommended
that his newly discovered low-virulence virus be applied intra-
nasally a t one day of age.
Dr. Beaudette repeatedly took the position that early vac-
cination was fraught with problems mainly because of the existence
of parental immunity. He frequently advised users of the B1 vac-
cine to revaccinate with wing-web vaccines.
Oar company was small a t that time, a n extension of a prac-
tice of four veterinarians in partnership. We were making fowl
pox, pigeon pox, laryngotracheitis, and Newcastle disease vac-
cines and pullorum disease stained antigens. We also did vac-
cination of poultry, consultation on poultry disease problems, and
some large- and small-animal work.
Introduction of the B1-strain vaccines by a variety of manu-
facturers began to affect our company seriously. When a company
sold its lead product, which was then Newcastle vaccine, the buyers
 Origin of LaSota strain of NDV 299

would usually also buy from the same manufacturer the other
vaccines they planned to use.
Because we were i n the field every day vaccinating flocks
in the South Jersey area, we soon realized that poultrymen could
not wait until their birds were four weeks old to use the Roakin-
strain product. We were constantly using and testing the B1 prod-
ucts of other manufacturers in the laboratory and in the field. We
recognized its virtiues and its faults. It was not pride and our as-
sociation with Dr. Beaudette that prevented us from adding the B1
product to our line. He was willing t o proceed with us in any man-
ner t h a t would have been to our benefit. The major problem, as
we saw it, was the time and method of application of the B1 prod-
uct in the field. Much of the application was very haphazard, and
the products were taking the blame when later outbreaks of New-
castle occurred.
We felt that application of a vaccine intramuscularly would
eliminate many of the field problems that were occurring. We re-
peatedly tried the B1 products intramuscularly, with poor results.
It was soon obvious that that strain was not going to work by that
method.
Our group sent me to discuss this matter with Dr. Beaudette.
I asked him if he had any strains of low-virulence virus that might
be effective if applied intramuscularly.
He jumped a t my suggestion and said he would review his
records to see what he could find that might be usable. Several
months later, he gave us three strains that he thought might have
some possibilities. We immediately produced material from each
of the strains f o r laboratory and field testing. About 9 months
later I went back to Dr. Beaudette with all of our test data. There
was no question in our minds t h a t one of them was f a r superior
to the other two. H e showed me his data, which brought him to the
same conclusion. The strain was identified by its case number
21717. Some time later we learned t h a t the strain had been iso-
lated from the f a r m of Adam LaSota in Westwood, Bergen County,
New Jersey. He had submitted chicks for postmortem examination
on February 6, 1946, and Newcastle disease virus was isolated
from the specimens and identified on 22 February 1946.
When we had completed our work with the strain, we sub-
mitted the data to the USDA and were ultimately issued a license
to produce a live-virus vaccine to be applied intramuscularly. We
identified the strain on the packaging not by the farmer's name
but by a combination of our trade name (Vineland Poultry Lab-
oratories, contracted t o VIPOL) and the last three digits - 717 -
300 Tevis M. Goldhaft

of Dr. Beaudette's case number. We promoted the product to be

used intramuscularly on chicks two weeks old or more. Simul-
taneously, w e developed a simple but effective automatic syringe
capable of delivering 0.2 ml of our mixed VIPOL 717 vaccine.
Right f r o m t h e beginning we recognized t h a t the strain could
be used intranasally, ocularly, and in the drinking water a s well a s
intramuscularly. Because i t had good spreading potential, we felt
t h a t any birds missed in initial application of the product had the
potential of being exposed during the period of spread. We felt t h a t
this gave us a material advantage over the producers of the B1
products.
Some time later, other vaccine manufacturers began to pro-
duce lentogenic vaccines, which we were sure were made by using
our product a s their seed virus. That resulted in many different
identifying names, and the USDA instituted the phrase B 1 type
to identify products made from lentogenic strains t h a t were not
specifically the B 1 strain. Since t h a t USDA requirement included
our company, the VIPOL 717 trade name became extraneous, and
we decided to use the strain name LaSota since Dr. Beaudette had
named all of his strains of various viruses f o r the f a r m e r on whose
property they were isolated. Some years later we presented a com-
memorative plaque to Adam LaSota's son a f t e r the first billion
doses of LaSota strain Newcastle disease vaccine had been manu-
factured.
I n Dr. Beaudette's original screenin,g of 105 strains of New-
castle disease virus ( 3 ) h e narrowed down his final choice f o r a
vaccine strain to five strains. In t h a t group of five, one was Roakin
and another was LaSota. P a r t of his test procedure was to inject
50 chicks (free of parental immunity) with each strain being
tested. In the ensuing 18-day period one chick died in the Roakin
group and 2 in the LaSota. The losses in the other three groups
were considerably higher. With the pressure on him to come up
with a vaccine strain, h e selected Roakin and so advised the USDA.
In 1950, when we settled on the LaSota strain, Dr. Beaudette said
to me, "The world of Newcastle disease vaccination would have
been different if those 2 chicks had not died on my preliminary
screening of the LaSota virus."
Obviously, if those 2 chicks had not died he would have
selected i t and there never would have been a Roakin strain, and
i t also might have prevented the Hitchner-Beaudette confrontation
t h a t ultimately occurred.
I n advance of preparing this report, I asked Dr. David Tudor
f o r a copy of case report 21717 f r o m the records of the New Jersey
 Origin of LaSota strain of NDV 301

Agricultural Experiment Station. It is dated 6 February 1946. The

case was handled by Charles B. Hudson, and the owner brought in 8
dead red chickens less than two weeks old. On postmortem the
specimens showed fibrinous plugs in the bronchi and some exudate
in the a i r sacs. Four spleens were saved for egg inoculation, 1 of
which was positive f o r Newcastle disease. Other documents I have
on hand indicate that the virus was identified and confirmed on 22
February 1946. Diagnosis on the basis of the postmortem symptoms
was infectioius bronchitis in all eight chicks. To my knowledge, no
one other than myself is aware t h a t i t was from t h a t isolation that
the LaSota strain virus f o r vaccine production was developed. In
the production of vaccines for field use we used 8th-passage ma-
terial a s seed virus.
Before his death, Dr. Beaudette repeatedly said to me that he
was proud t h a t Roakin, B1, and LaSota strains (the only ones in
use at t h a t time f o r vaccine production) had all come from his
laboratory and t h a t he had isolated them. His last publication (2)
in 1956, was a n admission t h a t he had misdiagnosed certain of his
isolations and had identified them a s infectious bronchitis when
they were really Newcastle disease viruses. What he did was to go
back and redo all of the early isolations that his records carried a s
infectious bronchitis. To his surprise, some of them turned out to
be Newcastle disease viruses. Thus, his final paper reported t h a t
Newcastle disease was prevalent long before i t was found in Cali-
fornia by Dr. Beach and his co-workers.
What i t also reveals was that the strain of virus he sent to
Dr. Hitchner was mislabeled. H e apparently could not bring him-
self to make t h a t statement directly. I t is my understanding t h a t
the designation B1 was Dr. Hitchner's way of identifying the pre-
sumed infectious bronchitis strain received from Dr. Beaudette.
When Dr. Beaudette said t h a t all three of the vaccine strains
had been isolated in his laboratory he was technically correct.
Only one of them, Roakin, was developed by him as a vaccine.
REFERENCES
1. Beaudette, F. R., and C. B. Hudson. Experiments on immunization
against laryngotracheitis in fowls. Proc. 36th Ann. Mtg. U. S. Livestock San.
Assoc. pp. 460-476. 1932.
2. Beaudette, F. R., and C. B. Hudson. Evidence of Newcastle disease in
the Eastern United States a s early as 1938. Cornell Vet. 46:227-244. 1956.
3. Beaudette, F. R., J. A. Bivins, and Barbara R. Miller. Newcastle dis-
ease immunization with live virus. Cornell Vet. 39(3) :203334. 1949.
4. Hitchner, S. B. Serendipity in science - Discovery of the B-1 strain
of Newcastle disease virus. Avian Dis. 19(2) :215-223. 1975.
5. Hitchner, S. B., and E. P. Johnson. A virus of low virulence for im-
munizing fowls against Newcastle disease (avian pneumoencephalitis). Vet.
Med. 43 :525-530. 1948.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article:

Guest Editorial: Historical Note on the Origin of the LaSota Strain of Newcastle Disease
Virus
Tevis M. Goldhaft
Avian Diseases, Vol. 24, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1980), pp. 297-301.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0005-2086%28198004%2F06%2924%3A2%3C297%3AGEHNOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References

4
Guest Editorial: Serendipity in Science: Discovery of the B-1 Strain of Newcastle Disease
Virus
S. B. Hitchner
Avian Diseases, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1975), pp. 215-223.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0005-2086%28197504%2F06%2919%3A2%3C215%3AGESISD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.