4,860 research outputs found

    Veterinary parasitology and immunology

    Get PDF

    Vaccination against ETEC in pigs

    Get PDF
    Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) that bear F4 fimbriae on their surface (F4+ ETEC) are a major cause of postweaning diarrhoea (PWD) in pigs. The F4 fimbriae enable the bacteria to colonize the small intestine and subsequently, to produce enterotoxins causing diarrhoea. Consequently, an F4-specific secretory IgA response at the intestinal mucosa that neutralizes the fimbriae is desired for protection against postweaning diarrhoea

    Maltose-binding protein is a potential carrier for oral immunizations

    Get PDF
    In humans and most animal species such as pigs, vaccination via the oral route is a prerequisite for induction of a protective immunity against enteropathogens. Hereto, live attenuated microorganisms can be used. However, these microorganisms often are either too attenuated to induce sufficient intestinal immunity or are still too virulent resulting in clinical signs. We previously demonstrated that it is possible to induce immunity against enteropathogens by targeting antigen towards enterocytes. Maltose-binding protein (MBP) is part of the maltose/maltodextrin system of Escherichia coli. MBP is a relatively small protein (42.5 kDa) approximately 3 Ă— 4 Ă— 6.5 nm in size with surface residues capable of both hydrogen bonding interactions and hydrophobic interactions. Recombinant proteins are often fused to MPB to improve their yield and to increase their solubility. In mice, these fusion proteins showed an enhanced immunogenicity following systemic immunization. More recently, this has been attributed to interaction of MBP with TLR4 on dendritic cells (DCs). TLR4 is also expressed in the enterocytes of the gut. Therefore, we examined if oral administration of MPB-FedF to 4-week-old pigs could be used to induce an immune response against F18+ verotoxigenic E. coli in pigs. Also we examined if the oral administration of MBP to pigs is able to induce an immune response. In both experiments cholera toxin was used as oral adjuvant

    Complement receptor 3 plays a significant role in β-glucan induced ROS production by porcine neutrophils

    Get PDF

    Food-specific sublingual immunotherapy is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs : a blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

    Get PDF
    Background: Food allergies are increasing in prevalence but no treatment strategies are currently available to cure dogs with food allergy. Over the past decade, experimental food allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (FA-SLIT) has emerged as a potential treatment for food allergies in human medicine. However, FA-SLIT has not been investigated in dogs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety, tolerability and dispenser sterility of FA-SLIT in healthy dogs before testing it in food allergic dogs. Eight experimental healthy beagle dogs, never orally exposed to peanut, were randomized in two groups to receive SLIT with peanut or placebo for 4 months. Subjects were monitored daily for local and systemic adverse effects. Blood samples for complete blood count and serum biochemistry, and urine for urinalysis were collected and the dogs' body weight was recorded at day 0, 35 and 119 of the SLIT treatment. Sera for the determination of peanut-specific IgG and IgE were collected at day 0, 35, 49, 70, 91, 105 and 119. Intradermal tests were performed before (day 0) and after (day 119) the experiment. The content of each dispenser used to administer treatment or placebo was tested for sterility after usage. In order to assess the presence or absence of sensitization, dogs were challenged 6 months after the end of the study with 2000 mu g of peanut extract daily for 7 to 14 days. Results: All dogs completed the study. The treatment did not provoke either local or systemic side-effects. Peanut-specific IgG significantly increased in treatment group. Even though a significant increase in peanut-specific IgE was also seen, intradermal tests were negative in all dogs before and after the experiment, and the challenge test did not trigger any adverse reactions in the treated dogs, which shows the protocol did not cause sensitization to peanut, but nevertheless primed the immune system as indicated by the humoral immune response. All dispenser solutions were sterile. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the used peanut-SLIT protocol is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs. Further studies should evaluate tolerability, safety and efficacy in dogs with food allergy
    • …
    corecore