4.3 Article

Proportion of circulating chicken heterophils and CXCLi2 expression in response to Salmonella enteritidis are affected by genetic line and immune modulating diet

期刊

VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
卷 140, 期 3-4, 页码 323-328

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2011.01.006

关键词

Chickens; Heterophils; Dietary immunomodulation; Salmonella enteritidis

资金

  1. USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture [2007-35604-17866]
  2. USDA [2005-38420-15810]
  3. Royal Thai Government
  4. Iowa State University Center for Integrated Animal Genomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic line and diet affect chicken heterophil activity and gene expression, and the combination of these factors can enhance disease resistance. This study evaluated the effects of immune modulating diets on heterophil/lymphocyte (H/L) ratio and heterophil chemokine expression in distinct genetic lines. Fayoumi and Leghorn chickens were fed a basal diet or immune modulating diets enhanced with beta-glucans, ascorbic acid, or corticosterone. H/L ratios and heterophil gene expression in response to in vitro stimulation with Salmonella enteritidis (SE)were evaluated on days 1, 3, 7, and 21 of diet treatment. The stress-mimicking corticosterone diet influenced H/L ratio in the Leghorn line, but not the Fayoumi line, suggesting resistance to stress-induced immunosuppression in the Fayoumi line. Leghorn line H/L ratios were increased on days 1 and 3 of corticosterone diet treatment, but not days 7 or 21. Expression of CXCLi2 by SE stimulated heterophils was higher in the Leghorn line, suggesting that Leghorns rely more heavily on inflammatory response than do Fayoumis. Corticosterone diet was associated with reduced CXCLi2 expression in heterophils from both lines. Dietary beta-glucan or ascorbic acid did not affect H/L ratio or CXCLi2 expression, suggesting that benefits of these immunomodulators may not be evident in healthy birds. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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