4.7 Article

Effect of Sophora flavescens on non-specific immune response of tilapia (GIFT Oreochromis niloticus) and disease resistance against Streptococcus agalactiae

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 220-227

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2012.10.020

关键词

Oreochromis niloticus; Sophora flavescens; Immune response; Survival; Streptococcus agalactiae

资金

  1. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation [0832021, 1123006-4]
  2. fund for basic research of Guangxi Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences (GXIB, CAS) [11009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper describes the effect of a diet supplemented with the Chinese traditional herbal medicine Sophora flavescens on the immunity and disease resistance of an Oreochromis niloticus GIFT strain. Experimental diets containing 0.025%, 0.050%, 0.100%, 0.200%, and 0.400% S. flavescens, as well as a control group without S. flavescens were used. We tested the non-specific humoral immune responses (lysozyme, antiprotease, and complement) and cellular immune responses (reactive oxygen species and nitrogen species production and myeloperoxidase), as well as disease resistance against Streptococcus agalactiae. S. flavescens supplementation at all dose significantly enhanced serum lysozyme, antiprotease, and natural hemolytic complement activity. Similarly, all S. flavescens doses enhanced cellular myeloperoxidase activity. The increased production of reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen intermediates by peripheral blood leucocytes was observed in most of the treatment groups throughout the test period. The fish fed 0.100% S. flavescens had a percent mortality of 21.1% and a relative percent survival of 73.3% compared with the group fed the basal diet during the S. agalactiae challenge. The results suggest that S. flavescens can be recommended as a tilapia feed supplement to enhance fish immunity and disease resistance against S. agalactiae. (c) 2012 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