4.5 Article

Selected clinical chemistry analytes correlate with the pathogenesis of inclusion body hepatitis experimentally induced by fowl aviadenoviruses

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 520-529

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2016.1168513

关键词

Clinical chemistry; biomarkers; fowl aviadenovirus; IBH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, clinical chemistry was applied to assess the pathogenesis and progression of experimentally induced inclusion body hepatitis (IBH). For this, five fowl aviadenovirus (FAdV) strains from recent IBH field outbreaks were used to orally inoculate different groups of day-old specific pathogen-free chickens, which were weighed, sampled and examined during necropsy by sequential killing. Mortalities of 50% and 30% were recorded in two groups between 6 and 9 days post-infection (dpi), along with a decreased weight of 23% and 20%, respectively, compared to the control group. Macroscopical changes were seen in the liver and kidney between 6 and 10 dpi, with no lesions being observed in the other organs. Histological lesions were observed in the liver and pancreas during the same period. Plasma was collected from killed birds of each group at each time point and the following clinical chemistry analytes were investigated: aspartate aminotransferase (AST), glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH), bile acids, total protein, albumin, uric acid and lipase. Plasma protein profile, AST and GLDH, together with bile acids values paralleled the macroscopical and histopathological lesions in the liver, while plasma lipase activity levels coincided with lesions observed in pancreas. In agreement with the histology and clinical chemistry, viral load in the target organs, liver and pancreas, was highest at 7 dpi. Thus, clinical chemistry was found to be a valuable tool in evaluating and monitoring the progression of IBH in experimentally infected birds, providing a deeper knowledge of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of a FAdV infection in chickens.

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

4.5
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