4.7 Article

Escherichia coli, but not Staphylococcus aureus triggers an early increased expression of factors contributing to the innate immune defense in the udder of the cow

期刊

VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2007057

关键词

toll-like receptor; mastitis; beta-defensin; mammary epithelial cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The outcome of an udder infection is influenced by the pathogen species. We established a strictly defined infection model to better analyze the unknown molecular causes for these pathogen-specific effects, using Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus strains previously asseverated from field cases of mastitis. Inoculation of quarters with 500 CFU of E. coli ( n = 4) was performed 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h before culling. All animals showed signs of acute clinical mastitis 12 h after challenge: increased somatic cell count (SCC), decreased milk yield, leukopenia, fever, and udder swelling. Animals inoculated with 10 000 CFU of S. aureus for 24 h ( n = 4) showed no or only modest clinical signs of mastitis. However, S. aureus caused clinical signs in animals, inoculated for 72 h - 84 h. Real-time PCR proved that E. coli inoculation strongly and significantly upregulated the expression of beta-defensins, TLR2 and TLR4 in the pathogen inoculated udder quarters as well as in mammary lymph nodes. TLR3 and TLR6 were not significantly regulated by the infections. Immuno-histochemistry identified mammary epithelial cells as sites for the upregulated TLR2 and beta-defensin expression. S. aureus, in contrast, did not significantly regulate the expression of any of these genes during the first 24 h after pathogen inoculation. Only 84 h after inoculation, the expression of beta-defensins, but not of TLRs was significantly (> 20 fold) upregulated in five out of six pathogen inoculated quarters. Using the established mastitis model, the data clearly demonstrate a pathogen-dependent difference in the time kinetics of induced pathogen receptors and defense molecules.

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

4.7
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