3.8 Article

Comparison of the bacterial flora of the duodenum in healthy cats and cats with signs of gastrointestinal tract disease

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2001.218.48

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine whether a colony environment predisposes healthy cats to high bacterial counts, including counts of obligate anaerobes, in the duodenum and whether increased numbers of bacteria could be round in the duodenum of cats with signs of chronic gastrointestinal tract disease. Design-Prospective study. Animals-20 healthy control cats (10 from a colony environment and 10 pet cats) and 19 cats with a history of chronic gastrointestinal tract disease. Procedure-Undiluted duodenal fluid was quantitatively and qualitatively assessed by bacteriologic culture under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Serum concentrations of cobalamin and folate were also measured. Results-Significant differences were not detected in the numbers of bacteria found in the duodenum of cats housed in a colony environment, compared with pet cats fed an identical diet prior to sampling. All healthy cats were, therefore, combined into 1 control group. Compared with healthy cats, cats with clinical signs of gastrointestinal tract disease had significantly lower counts of microaerophilic bacteria, whereas total, anaerobic, and aerobic bacterial counts were not significantly different. None of the cats with disease had total bacterial counts higher than expected from the range established in the control cats. Differences were not detected in regard to serum folate or cobalamin concentrations between diseased and healthy cats. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-These findings indicated that healthy colony cats and pet cats have high numbers of bacteria in the duodenum, including high numbers of obligate anaerobes. Our findings also suggest that bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine is not a common clinical syndrome in cats with chronic nonobstructive gastrointestinal tract disease.

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

3.8
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