4.2 Article

A preliminary assessment of relative sensitivities to foreign red blood cell challenges in the northern bobwhite for potential evaluation of immunotoxicity

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOTOXICOLOGY
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 171-173

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1080/15476910903023060

关键词

Avian; humoral response; bobwhite quail; immunotoxicological methods; foreign red blood cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many environmental toxins have been shown to suppress the immune system across taxa. The foreign red blood cell (RBC) challenge is an important part of a complement of tests used to assess immunocompetence in the laboratory because it can assess an individual's humoral response without impacting its health. This challenge is used commonly across species and measures antibody titers in response to an intraperitoneal, intravenous, or subcutaneous injection of foreign RBCs. Determination of the best appropriate foreign RBC challenge is therefore important when designing tests for evaluation of humoral responses. The northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) is a commonly used species for avian toxicity tests, however little is known about the relative sensitivities of its humoral responses to foreign erythrocytes. In this pilot study, we exposed adult quail to intravenous injections of 5% solutions of sheep, rat, rabbit, bovine, or chicken erythrocytes and performed antibody titers [hemagglutination assay for total immunoglobulin (Ig), IgG, and IgM] for primary and secondary responses. Although the bobwhites appeared to respond strongly to rat RBCs, high variability in responses were observed among individuals. Chicken RBCs elicited the poorest responses for both primary and secondary challenges. Sheep and bovine RBCs were adequate antigens for this test in bobwhites. We found that rabbit erythrocytes elicited the strongest responses with the least amount of variability between individuals. Rabbit RBCs, therefore, appear to be the ideal antigen for this test of the humoral response in this species.

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

4.2
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