4.4 Article

Different susceptibility to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection among Chinese native pig breeds

期刊

ARCHIVES OF VIROLOGY
卷 163, 期 8, 页码 2155-2164

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00705-018-3821-y

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972075]
  2. Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Fund [CX (12)2034]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20140741]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China is rich in native pig breeds, yet information regarding the susceptibility/resistance of local breeds to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) infection is lacking. In the present study, an in vitro method based on assessing PRRSV replication in porcine alveolar macrophages (PAMs) was established to evaluate PRRSV susceptibility/resistance in a commercial pig breed (Landrace) and five native pig breeds from Jiangsu and Anhui provinces in China. Expression levels of cytokines (IL-8, IL-10, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma), Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), CD163 (PRRSV receptor), and sialoadhesin (Sn, PRRSV receptor) in infected pigs were determined using real-time PCR, and the association between PRRSV susceptibility/resistance and the abundance of the cytokines and receptors was investigated. The viral replication rate and titer at 0, 6, 12 18, 24 and 36 hours postinfection (hpi) were determined to assess the proliferation dynamics of PRRSV NJGC in PAMs. Based on the PRRSV proliferation dynamics, the results indicated that Dingyuan pigs were the most susceptible to PRRSV infection, whereas Jiangquhai pigs were the least susceptible to PRRSV infection among the six pig breeds tested, as indicated by measuring PRRSV replication and the viral load in PAMs. The different levels of susceptibility to PRRSV infection in PAMs may be associated with differences in the abundance of CD163 (PRRSV receptor), cytokines IL-8, IFN-gamma, and TNF-alpha in Jiangquhai and Dingyuan pig breeds after viral inoculation.

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

4.4
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