4.6 Article

Salivary biomarkers to monitor stress due to aggression after weaning in piglets

期刊

RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 178-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.01.014

关键词

Weaning; Stress biomarkers; Piglets; Lesion scoring; Cortisol; Chromogranin A

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain [FJCI-2015-24662, IJCI-2016-30928]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the changes of salivary stress biomarkers were contrasted with skin lesions during weaning in piglets. The stress biomarkers evaluated were cortisol (as the reflection of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis), chromogranin A (CgA) and alpha amylase (sAA) (both as the reflection of sympathoadrenal-medullary (SAM) axis). In addition, the accumulation of skin lesions were assessed as proxy measures of aggression. One hundred and two Danbred piglets (51 female and 51 male) from primiparous and multiparous sows were studied from birth to two days post-weaning. Saliva sampling and lesion scoring were performed one day pre-weaning (1), and one (+ 1) and two days post-weaning (+ 2). Our results show that on +1, there was a significant (P < .0001) increase in salivary cortisol, CgA and skin lesions; whereas on + 2, there was a significant increase (P < .0001) in salivary CgA and skin lesions. CgA was correlated with the skin lesion score (r = 0.4; P < .0001). sAA did not significantly change at any sampling time. It can be concluded that stress associated to weaning, is associated with changes in salivary CgA and cortisol stress biomarkers and an increase in skin lesions. However, CgA shows higher correlation with skin lesions which indicates that stress due to fighting activates the SAM stress pathway. Therefore, a combination of physiological biomarkers (CgA and cortisol) and proxy of aggression (skin lesions) is preferable than the use of a single biomarker or behavioural indicator when monitoring the social stress response associated to weaning 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