4.7 Article

Comparison of intestinal mucosa homogenate and pure culture of the homologous Lawsonia intracellularis isolate in reproducing proliferative enteropathy in swine

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 2, Pages 159-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1135(03)00013-0

Keywords

Lawsonia intracellularis; proliferative enteropathy; pure culture; intestinal mucosa homogenate; swine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little information is available on reproduction of proliferative enteropathy (PE) using a virulent pure culture of Lawsonia intracellularis. Reproduction of the disease using PE-diseased mucosa homogenates, however, is well-characterized. The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare clinical signs, growth performance and the severity of lesions in pigs inoculated with intestinal mucosa homogenate or pure culture of the homologous L. intracellularis isolate. Five-week-old pigs were inoculated with pure culture of L. intracellularis (isolate PHE/MN1-00; n = 10), PE-diseased mucosa (n = 10), or control media (n = 4). The L. intracellularis isolate PHE/MN1-00 used in the pure culture inoculum was extracted from a fragment of the same intestine used to prepare the mucosa homogenate. Clinical signs and growth performance were evaluated throughout the study. Fecal shedding was evaluated in all animals weekly during the experiment. All animals were euthanized 22 days post-inoculation, the intestines were examined grossly and histologically. Results showed that both the infection procedures reproduced clinical disease, macroscopic and histologic lesions typical of PE. Fecal shedding was detected in animals in both challenge groups. In conclusion, the L. intracellularis isolate PHE/MN1-00 reproduces typical clinical signs and lesions of PE similar to the homologous infection with an intestinal mucosa homogenate. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available