4.4 Article

Increased Parasite Resistance and Recurrent Airway Obstruction in Horses of a High-Prevalence Family

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 407-413

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0465.x

关键词

Equine; Genetic; Hygiene hypothesis

资金

  1. Berne Equine Research Group
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [310000-116502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Equine recurrent airway obstruction (RAO) shares many characteristics with human asthma. In humans, an inverse relationship between susceptibility to asthma and resistance to parasites is suspected. Hypothesis/Objectives Members of a high-incidence RAO half-sibling family (F) shed fewer strongylid eggs compared with RAO-unaffected pasture mates (PM) and that RAO-affected horses shed fewer eggs than RAO-unaffected half-siblings. Animals Seventy-three F and 73 unrelated, age matched PM. Methods Cases and controls kept under the same management and deworming regime were examined. Each individual was classified as RAO affected or RAO unaffected and fecal samples were collected before and 1-3 weeks and 3 months after deworming. Samples were analyzed by combined sedimentation-flotation and modified McMaster methods and classified into 3 categories of 0 eggs per gram of feces (EpG), 1-100 EpG, and > 100 EpG, respectively. Results PM compared with RAO-affected F had a 16.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-136.3) times higher risk for shedding > 100 EpG compared with 0 EpG and a 5.3 (95% CI: 1.0-27.4) times higher risk for shedding > 100 EpG compared with 0 EpG. There was no significant effect when RAO-unaffected F were compared with their PM. RAO-unaffected compared with RAO-affected offspring had a 5.8 (95% CI: 0.0-1.0) times higher risk for shedding 1-100 EpG. Age, sex, breed, and sharing pastures with other species had no significant confounding effects. Conclusion and Clinical Importance RAO is associated with resistance against strongylid parasites in a high-prevalence family.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据