4.6 Article

Effects of Chitosan on Intestinal Inflammation in Weaned Pigs Challenged by Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104192

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31330075, 31301985]
  2. Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department Project of China [12B058]
  3. National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China [2013CB127303]
  4. Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC [cstc2012jjA80001]
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences [ISACX-LYQY-QN-1205, 2013T2S0014, 2013T2S0015, 2013T2S0012, 2013T1S0010, 2011T2S15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate whether supplementation with chitosan (COS) could reduce diarrhea and to explore how COS alleviates intestinal inflammation in weaned pigs. Thirty pigs (Duroc6Landrace6Yorkshire, initial BW of 5.65 +/- 0.27) weaned at age 21 d were challenged with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli during a preliminary trial period, and then divided into three treatment groups. Pigs in individual pens were fed a corn-soybean meal diet, that contained either 0 (control), 50 mg/kg chlortetracycline, or 300 mg/kg COS for 21 days. The post-weaning diarrhea frequency, calprotectin levels and TLR4 protein expression were decreased (P < 0.05) in both the COS and chlortetracycline groups compared with control. Simultaneously, supplemental COS and chlortetracycline had no effect on the mRNA expression of TNF-alpha in the jejunal mucosa, or on the concentrations of IL-1 beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha in serum. However, COS supplementation improved (P < 0.05) the mRNA expression of IL-1 beta and IL-6 in the jejunal mucosa. The results indicate that supplementation with COS at 300 mg/kg was effective for alleviating intestinal inflammation and enhancing the cell-mediated immune response. As feed additives, chitosan and chlortetracycline may influence different mechanisms for alleviating inflammation in piglets.

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

4.6
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