4.7 Article

In vivo effects of beta-glucan and LPS on regulation of lysozyme activity and mRNA expression in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 39-54

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/fsim.2002.0416

关键词

Atlantic salmon; lysozyme transcription; intracellular lysozyme activity; induced lysozyme production; beta-glucan; lipopolysaccharide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was undertaken to compare the effects of intraperitoneally injected bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and yeast beta-glucan on lysozyme activity in Atlantic salmon, and to explore what organ(s) are responsible for the increase in plasma lysozyme activity induced by the compounds. The results indicated that LPS stimulates plasma lysozyme activity at least as efficiently as beta-glucan. The lysozyme gene was shown to be transcribed in head kidney, spleen, liver and intestine, and accumulation of transcript was demonstrated in response to both beta-glucan and LPS in all of these organs. Intracellular lysozyme activity was detected in the same organs and in isolated blood polymorphonuclear cells (PMN) and lymphocytes. Increased lysozyme activity in response to both beta-glucan and LPS was demonstrated in blood PMN and cells isolated from head kidney and intestine. In spleen and liver on the other hand, there was no increase in lysozyme activity in response to the stimulants. Based on previous work and the present results it is suggested that plasma lysozyme induced by LPS and beta-glucan originate from macrophages in the different organs. The head kidney is likely to be the main supplier of plasma lysozyme considering its high contents of macrophages. This work supports the notion that microbial compounds containing phylogenetically conserved structures (beta-glucan and LPS) are able to stimulate the non-specific defence of animals against infection by enhancing the lysozyme expression. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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