4.7 Article

The protective effect against Vibrio campbellii in Artemia nauplii by pure β-glucan and isogenic yeast cells differing in β-glucan and chitin content operated with a source-dependent time lag

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1003-1014

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2007.04.002

关键词

Artemia; gnotobiotic culture; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; isogenic yeast mutant; Vibrio campbellii; priming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In invertebrates the defence system to fight infectious diseases depends mainly on a non-specific or innate immune response, contrary to the vertebrate immune system. The use of natural immunostimulants that enhance the defence mechanism or the immune response of target organisms may be an excellent preventive tool against pathogens. Several strains of baker's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been found to be good immune enhancers. Previously, it was shown that small quantities of the mnn9 yeast cells and/or glucan particles could protect Artemia nauplii against the pathogenic bacterium Vibrio campbellii in the gnotobiotic Artemia challenge test. Apparently, the higher amount and/or availability of beta-glucans and/or chitin present in mnn9 yeast strain might play an essential role in such protection. The present study reveals that these compounds could only provide protection against the pathogen when they were Supplied to Artemia well in advance of the challenge (8-48 h depending on the source). Also the putative immunostimulant did not have a curative action. Moreover, short-time exposure of Artemia to mnn9 strain (priming) did not provide protection against the pathogen longer than two days. Hence, it is hypothesized that the mere stimulation of known biochemical pathways, e.g. prophenoloxidase is not sufficient to explain the mechanisms involved in the observed immunostimulation obtained by beta-glucans and/or mnn9 yeast in Artemia nauplii. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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