4.3 Article

Flow cytometric characterization of Peyer's patch and cecal tonsil T lymphocytes in laying hens following challenge with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis

期刊

VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
卷 133, 期 2-4, 页码 276-281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2009.08.001

关键词

Avian immunology; Mucosal immunity; Peyer's patch; Flow cytometry; Salmonella

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service [CRIS 6612-32000-031-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two trials were conducted to determine T cell changes in Peyer's patches (PP) and cecal tonsils (CT) of specific-pathogen-free Single-Comb White Leghorn hens challenged with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE). Each week, crop lavage samples were obtained from 4 or 3 hens in Trials 1 and 2, respectively. These birds were then sacrificed and their intestinal tracts excised. The crop sample and contents of one cecum from each hen were cultured for the presence of SE. Cells were purified from proximal and distal PP along with both CT and then aliquots of cells were incubated with antibodies to CD4, CD8, and the three T cell receptors (TCR). The T subsets were identified via flow cytometric analysis. Crop and cecal samples were 100% culture positive for SE at week I post challenge and a percentage of samples remained positive throughout the study. Some differences in TCR subsets between or within tissues were observed at various times relative to SE challenge but over-all the subsets remained similar during the study. The predominant TCR was TCR2 (v beta 1) followed by TCR3 (v beta 2). Low numbers of TCR1 (gamma delta) cells were observed. CD4/CD8 ratios increased in the PP and CT tissues by week I post challenge and the ratio elevation persisted throughout the experiment. These results indicate that T cell populations are comparable between PP and CT and enteric SE infection can affect the cellular dynamics of these lymphoid tissues. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.3
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