4.7 Article

Transcript and blood-microbiome analysis towards a blood diagnostic tool for goats affected by Haemonchus contortus

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08939-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Evans Allen program [1017311, OKLUTILAHUN2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the changes in hematological parameters and microbiome composition in Alpine goats parasitized by the barber pole worm. The results show that the blood samples of infected goats exhibit specific transcripts and an increase in microflora abundance and diversity as the goats age.
The Alpine goat (Capra aegagrus hircus) is parasitized by the barber pole worm (Haemonchus contortus). Hematological parameters from transcript and metagenome analysis in the host are reflective of infestation. We explored comparisons between blood samples of control, infected, infected zoledronic acid-treated, and infected antibody (anti-gamma delta T cells) treated wethers under controlled conditions. Seven days post-inoculation (dpi), we identified 7,627 transcripts associated with the different treatment types. Microbiome measurements at 7 dpi revealed fewer raw read counts across all treatments and a less diverse microbial flora than at 21 dpi. This study identifies treatment specific transcripts and an increase in microflora abundance and diversity as wethers age. Further, F/B ratio reflect health, based on depression or elevation above thresholds defined by the baseline of non-infected controls. Forty Alpine wethers were studied where blood samples were collected from five goats in four treatment groups on 7 dpi and 21 dpi. Transcript and microbiome profiles were obtained using the Partek Flow (St. Louis, Missouri, USA) software suites pipelines. Inflammation comparisons were based on the Firmicutes/Bacteriodetes ratios that are calculated as well as the reduction of microbial diversity.

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