4.7 Article

Elevated milk soluble CD14 in bovine mammary glands challenged with Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 7, 页码 2382-2389

出版社

AMER DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73832-6

关键词

CD14; LPS; Escherichia coli; mastitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine whether soluble CD14 (sCD14) in milk was affected by stage of lactation, milk somatic cell count (SCC), presence of bacteria, or lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation. Milk samples from 100 lactating cows ( 396 functional quarters) were assayed for sCD14 in milk to determine effects of stage of lactation, SCC, and intramammary infection. The concentration of sCD14 was highest in transitional milk (0 to 4 d postpartum) and in milk with high SCC (>750,000 cells/ml). Most of the infected quarters (>80%) were infected by coagulase-negative staphylococci and yeast. No difference was found between noninfected and infected quarters. One quarter of six healthy lactating cows was challenged with 100 mug LPS in order to study the kinetics of sCD14 during an LPS-induced inflammation. Milk samples were collected at various intervals until 72 h after injection. Rectal temperature, milk tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-8 increased immediately after challenge. The increase in sCD14 paralleled the increase in SCC, peaked at 12 h, and started to decline after 24 h. Serum leakage, as characterized by the level of bovine serum albumin in milk, peaked at 4 h and then gradually decreased. All parameters remained at basal levels in control quarters throughout the study. In vitro experiments indicated that neutrophils released sCD14 in response to LPS in a dose-dependent manner. The results indicate that the concentration of sCD14 was significantly increased in milk after LPS challenge. The increase was not likely due to serum leakage. Instead, infiltrated neutrophils might be the main source of increased sCD14 in milk during inflammation.

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