4.3 Article

Evaluation of immune system function in neonatal pigs born vaginally or by Cesarean section

期刊

DOMESTIC ANIMAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 81-87

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2008.02.002

关键词

c-section; immune; growth; stress; pigs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Full term crossbred sows were selected to study the interaction of the immune system, hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, and growth in pigs born by Cesarean section (c-section; n = 4 sows) or vaginal birth (n = 4 sows). Gestation length and birth weight did not differ between vaginal birth and c-section pigs (P = 0.34 and 0.62, respectively). Blood and tissue samples were collected from 44 pigs at birth. Forty-five pigs were weaned at 13 d. On d 14, pigs received an i.p. injection of lipopolysaccaride (LPS; 150 mu g/kg) or saline at min 0, and blood samples were collected at -20, -10, 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, 90, and 120 min. Vaginal birth pigs had 21% greater average daily gain than c-section pigs on d 14 (P < 0.01). Basal serum concentrations of adrenocorticotrophin (ACTH) and cortisol were greater in c-section than vaginal birth pigs at birth (P < 0.01) but were not different at 14 d (P = 0.99 and 0.80, respectively). LPS increased serum concentrations of ACTH, cortisol, interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha; P < 0.01) but the response was not different between c-section and vaginal birth (P > 0.22). Basal serum concentrations of TNF-alpha tended to be greater in c-section vs vaginal birth pigs at 14 d (P = 0.0967); however, basal serum concentrations of IFN-gamma tended to be lower in c-section pigs vs vaginal birth pigs at 14 d (P = 0.0787). Expression of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-6 receptor, IL-1 beta, and TNF-alpha mRNA did not differ between vaginal birth and c-section pigs but changed in an age and tissue dependent manner. Thus, reduced growth rate of c-section pigs is associated with altered immune system function. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.3
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