The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 25 of the 87 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Coliform mastitis
Open accessAbstract
Gram-negative bacteria that commonly cause bovine mastitis are classified as environmental pathogens. The point sources of coliform bacteria that cause infections include bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows. Rates of coliform mastitis increase during climatic periods that maximize populations in the environment. The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal. Once in the gland, bacteria must utilize available substrates in the mammary secretion to replicate and evade host defenses. Rates of coliform mastitis are greater during the transitional phases of the non- lactating period than during lactation. The ability to infect the non-lactating gland is directly related to the ability of bacteria to acquire iron from the mammary secretion. The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation. Damage to the host is mediated by the release of endotoxin. The severity and duration of clinical signs associated with coliform mastitis are reduced by the use of core-antigen bacterins.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review summarizes coliform mastitis as an environmentally acquired bovine mammary infection caused mainly by *Escherichia coli* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*, emphasizing pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and control. It concludes that management is most effective through reducing environmental exposure and using core-antigen bacterins, which in field trials reduced clinical mastitis 4- to 5-fold.
Key findings
- Coliform mastitis is usually caused by environmental Gram-negative bacteria; common sources include bedding, soil, manure, water, and other organic matter in cows’ environments.
- During lactation, coliform infections are often short: the average duration of *E. coli* intramammary infections was reported as less than 10 days, and *K. pneumoniae* averaged about 21 days.
- In a field-trial summary, Gram-negative core-antigen vaccination reduced clinical mastitis incidence, with clinical cases 4- to 5-fold lower in vaccinated cows than controls; another trial result cited was that 66.7% of coliform intramammary infections in unvaccinated cows became clinical in early lactation versus 20% in vaccinated cows.
- Dry-period infections are important: 65% of coliform clinical cases in the first two months of lactation were reported to have originated during the dry period.
Methods
- Narrative review article synthesizing prior experimental, field-trial, survey, and laboratory studies on bovine coliform mastitis.
- No original study sample is reported in this paper; it summarizes evidence from published work on diagnosis, virulence, epidemiology, and management.
- The main analysis is qualitative integration of prior findings, with occasional quantitative comparisons taken from cited studies.
Limitations
- The paper explicitly notes that control data are lacking to demonstrate a clear effect of heat stress on susceptibility to clinical coliform mastitis.
- It states that the mechanisms by which immunization reduces clinical mastitis are not known.
- Evident from the text: because this is a review, it does not present new primary data or a new analytic design of its own.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 No full text of the sources · 14 Partly supported · 11 Sources not found · 7 Own interpretation · 4 Supported so far · 2 Not supported · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Wood shavings, straw, chopped newspaper, recycled manure, and corn fodder are commonly used bedding materials that often sustain coliform populations greater than 10 6 colony forming units/gram of bedding [24, 27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] [24] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 250-258. - source
- Disputedcites [27] [27] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Bacterial counts associated with recycled chopped newspaper bedding, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 1756-1761. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 1 (CONCLUSIONS section) reports mean coliform counts of about 10^5.5 CFU/g for used chopped newspaper and 10^5.2 CFU/g for used wood shavings—below the claimed 10^6 threshold. The study did not test recycled manure or corn fodder, and its discussion says straw was not included. The reported counts therefore contradict the threshold claim for the two named materials it measured. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Only about 10% of clinical coliform cases result in systemic signs including fever, anorexia, and altered respiration [25, 55].”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Clinical Mastitis Severity Codes section defines code 5 as including systemic signs. The Mastitis Severity Codes results report that 29.2% of clinical coliform cases were code 5, contrary to the claimed approximately 10%. Our copy does not specify fever, anorexia, or altered respiration as those signs. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Evading cellular defenses · plain
“The primary cellular defense of the bovine mammary gland against coliform mastitis is the phagocytosis and killing of bacteria by neutrophils [18, 60].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] [18] Hill A.W., Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow, Res. Vet. Sci. 31 (1981) 107-112. - source
- Supportedcites [60] [60] Van Werven T., Noordhuizen-Stassen E.N., Daemen A.J.J.M., Schukken Y.H., Brand A., Burvenich C., Preinfection in vitro chemotaxis, phagocytosis, oxidative burst, and expression of CD11/CD18 receptors and their predictive capacity on the outcome of mastitis induced in dairy cows with Escherichia coli , J. Dairy Sci. 80 (1997) 67-74. - source
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes leukocyte migration into the udder, followed by phagocytosis and intracellular killing, as key defenses against E. coli mastitis. The Discussion (page unavailable) calls fast leukocyte migration the most important step in the defense cascade and describes neutrophil movement into inflammatory sites. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Evading cellular defenses · plain
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Damage to the host is mediated by the release of endotoxin.”
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Endotoxin · plain
“Endotoxin is the primary virulence factor of Gram-negative bacteria responsible for damage to the cow.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] [53] Shuster D.E., Harmon R.J., Jackson J.A., Hemken R.E., Suppression of milk production during endotoxin-induced mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 74 (1991) 3746-3774. - source
- Supportedcites [3] [3] Bouchard L., Blais S., Desrosiers C., Zhoa X., Lacasse P., Nitic oxide production during endotoxin-induced mastitis in the cow, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 2574-2581. - source
The Introduction states that endotoxin (LPS) is responsible for acute clinical symptoms of coliform mastitis and that interaction with LPS induces inflammatory mediators. In Experiment 1, LPS infusion caused mastitis and changes in mammary epithelial permeability, supporting the claim that endotoxin mediates harm to the host. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] [21] Hirvonen J., Eklund K., Teppo A.M., Huszenicza G., Kulcsar M., Saloniemi H., Pyorala S., Acute phase response in dairy cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis, Acta. Vet. Scand. 40 (1999) 35-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] [22] Hoeben D., Burvenich B., Trevisi E., Bertoni G., Hamann J., Bruckmairer R.M., Blum J.W., Role of endotoxin and TNFin the pathogenesis of experimentally induced coliform mastitis in periparturient cows, J. Dairy Res. 67 (2000) 503-514. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Endotoxin · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Rates of coliform mastitis are greater during the transitional phases of the nonlactating period than during lactation.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Dry period · plain
“Rates of new intramammary infections caused by coliforms are greater during the dry period than during lactation [12].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] [12] Eberhart R.J., Natzke R.P., Newbould F.S.H., Nonnecke B., Thompson P., Coliform mastitis - a review, J. Dairy Sci . 62 (1979) 1-22. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The review’s “Time of Infection” section reports coliform infections arising during the dry period and a high proportion of peracute cases around parturition. It does not establish that rates during the transitional phases of the nonlactating period exceed rates during lactation; several figures instead describe cases in early lactation. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Dry period · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Decreased milk production during clinical coliform mastitis results both directly and indirectly from the local and systemic effects of endotoxin [3, 21, 22].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [3] [3] Bouchard L., Blais S., Desrosiers C., Zhoa X., Lacasse P., Nitic oxide production during endotoxin-induced mastitis in the cow, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 2574-2581. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 1 reports that intramammary endotoxin infusion reduced milk production and produced both udder inflammation and increased body temperature. The paper does not establish that the reduction resulted both directly and indirectly from local and systemic effects, and its experiment used induced mastitis rather than naturally occurring clinical coliform mastitis. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] [21] Hirvonen J., Eklund K., Teppo A.M., Huszenicza G., Kulcsar M., Saloniemi H., Pyorala S., Acute phase response in dairy cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis, Acta. Vet. Scand. 40 (1999) 35-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] [22] Hoeben D., Burvenich B., Trevisi E., Bertoni G., Hamann J., Bruckmairer R.M., Blum J.W., Role of endotoxin and TNFin the pathogenesis of experimentally induced coliform mastitis in periparturient cows, J. Dairy Res. 67 (2000) 503-514. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Intramammary infections caused by Serratia spp. and Pseudomonas spp. often are chronic infections that may persist multiple lactations [25].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rates of Clinical Mastitis section reports that 31.0% of cases involving nonlactose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli were potential repeat cases, and relates this finding to high clinical recurrence among pseudomonads. The paper does not identify Serratia in that finding or establish that infections were chronic or persisted across multiple lactations; the herds were monitored for one year. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Coliform mastitis can result in bacteremia and septicemia as the blood-milk barrier is destroyed [61].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [61] [61] Wenz J.R., Barrington G.M., Garry F.B., McSweeney K.D., Dinsmore R.P., Goodell G., Callan R.J., Bacteremia associated with naturally occuring acute coliform mastitis in dairy cows, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219 (2001) 976-981. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that E. coli and Klebsiella isolated from cows’ blood matched isolates from their infected mammary glands, supporting mastitis-associated bacteremia. It does not establish septicemia or show that destruction of the blood–milk barrier caused the bacteremia; it also notes that some cases may involve bacteria translocating from other organs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The percentage distribution of Gram-negative bacteria causing clinical mastitis is herd dependant, but studies in the United States and Europe consistently report that appropriately 40% of clinical cases are the result of Gram-negative bacteria [25, 27, 55, 57].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Distribution of Clinical Cases by Bacteriological Status section reports 29.7% coliform cases and 6.5% nonlactose-fermenting cases; the paper identifies the latter as Gram-negative bacilli. Together, these account for about 36% of cases in the herds studied, reasonably close to 40%. The paper does not establish that studies across the United States and Europe consistently find that proportion; its comparison with United Kingdom herds concerns overall mastitis rates, not the Gram-negative percentage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Could not verifycites [27] [27] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Bacterial counts associated with recycled chopped newspaper bedding, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 1756-1761. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses bedding as a source of mastitis pathogens, and Bedding Counts reports that 1.1% of quarters had a Gram-negative intramammary infection. Neither passage gives the proportion of clinical mastitis cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Searches for the claimed 40% figure and for clinical-case proportions found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] [57] Suriyasathaporn W., Schukken Y.H., Nielen M., Brand A., Low somatic cell count: a risk factor for subsequent clinical mastitis in a dairy herd, J. Dairy Sci. 83 (2000) 12481255. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Coliforms that can metabolize the constituents of milk in the micro-environment of the gland can reach populations exceeding 10 8 colony-forming units per milliliter of milk [31].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] [31] Hogan J.S., Weiss W.P., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 415-422. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses coliform intramammary infections, and the Milk samples section describes culturing milk to identify bacteria. Neither reports coliform growth from milk constituents or populations exceeding 10^8 colony-forming units per milliliter; searches for those terms and the numerical threshold found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
- Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Resistance to the bactericidal activity of serum is a virulence factor common to many coliform bacteria causing clinical mastitis, but is not a prerequisite for pathogenicity [14, 26, 36, 52].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] [14] Fang W., Pyorala S., Mastitis-causing Escherichia coli : serum sensitivity and susceptibility to selected antibacterial in milk, J. Dairy Sci. 79 (1996) 76-82. - source
The Discussion (page not specified) identifies resistance to serum complement as a determinant of virulence in intramammary infection. The Results (page not specified) report that 68% of the studied mastitis-causing E. coli isolates were resistant or moderately resistant, meaning others caused mastitis without that resistance. The evidence concerns E. coli specifically. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [26] [26] Hogan J.S., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Serum susceptibility of coliforms isolated from bovine intramammary infections, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1893-1899. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says that both serum-resistant and serum-susceptible coliforms were isolated from naturally occurring intramammary infections, directly supporting that resistance is not a prerequisite. The Introduction reports an association with virulence in experimentally induced mastitis, but the paper does not establish that serum resistance is a common virulence factor specifically among bacteria causing clinical mastitis; its isolates are described as coming from intramammary infections. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] [36] Kaipainen T., Pahjanvirta T., Shpigel N.Y., Aswimmer A., Pyorala S., Pelkonen S., Virulence factors of Escherichia coli isolated 13. from bovine clinical mastitis, Vet. Microbiol. 85 (2002) 37-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] [52] Sanchez-Carlo V., McDonald J.S., Packer R.A., Virulence factors of Escherichia coli isolated from cows with acute mastitis, Am. J. Vet. Res. 45 (1984) 1775-1777. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Vaccination reduced the peak bacterial counts in infected quarters, duration of intramammary infections by 25%, and duration of clinical signs of mastitis by 50% compared with unvaccinated cows [33].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] [33] Hogan J.S., Weiss W.P., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Sordillo L.M., Effects of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine on mild clinical coliform mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 285-290. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion report shorter intramammary infections and local clinical signs in J5-vaccinated cows, but the reported durations imply about a 39% reduction in infection duration (129.8 versus 79.6 hours), not 25%, and about a 44% reduction in the measured period of severe local signs (31.6 versus 17.7 hours). The J5 section explicitly says vaccination did not reduce peak bacterial counts. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the severity of clinical disease and peak coliform counts in mammary secretions are positively correlated.”
correlational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In general, older cows have a higher rate of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria compared with primiparous cows [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
correlational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Borderline substantial claim. It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once in the gland, bacteria must utilize available substrates in the mammary secretion to replicate and evade host defenses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coliform bacteria do not appear to colonize inside the mammary gland, but multiply in the secretion without attachment to epithelial surfaces.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Locally, endotoxin does not directly effect secretory cell but disrupts the blood flow [53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] [53] Shuster D.E., Harmon R.J., Jackson J.A., Hemken R.E., Suppression of milk production during endotoxin-induced mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 74 (1991) 3746-3774. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many coliform bacteria isolated from the bovine mammary gland are capable of expressing cytotoxins and hemolysins, but the production of exotoxins does not appear to be critical for evading host defenses [42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] [42] Lipman L.J.A., de Nijs A., Gaastra W., Isolation and identification of fimbriae and toxin production by Escherichia coli strains from cows with clinical mastitis, Vet. Microbiol. 47 (1995) 1-7. - source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Products designed to form a physical barrier between the teat and the environment between milkings have been minimally successful in persistence and they lack efficacy in reducing new intramammary infections [44].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44] [44] National Mastitis Council, Summary of peerreviewed publications on efficacy of premilking and postmilking teat disinfectants published since 1980. Proc. National Mastitis Council 41st Annual Meeting, national Mastitis Council, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, appendix. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While vaccination with FepA was effective against E. coli , the immune response did not affect growth of Klebsiella in secretion from involuted glands [41].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41] [41] Lin J., Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Growth responses of coliform bacteria to purified immunoglobulin G from cows immunized with ferric enterobactin receptor FepA, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 86-92. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, these data imply that the core antigen vaccines do not prevent the occurrence of mastitis, but do reduce the severity of the disease.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.
- Rests on an assumption: Immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the general conclusions concerning severity of clinical coliform cases are that few coliform intramammary infections cause systemic clinical signs, but the majority of clinical cases resulting in systemic signs are caused by coliform bacteria.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliform bacteria that cause infections originate from bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows.
“The point sources of coliform bacteria that cause infections include bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.
“The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.”
“The portal of entry for Gram-negative bacteria into the mammary gland is the teat canal.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mammary gland is not a natural habitat for coliform bacteria.
“Although the mammary gland is not considered a natural habitat for coliform bacteria, many strains are capable of surviving and multiplying in the mammary gland.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The spread of Gram-negative bacteria from other regions of the body to the mammary gland via the vascular or lymphatic systems is minimal.
“However, the spread of Gram-negative bacteria from other regions of the body to the mammary gland via the vascular or lymphatic systems appears minimal.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The only apparent prerequisite for a strain to cause mastitis is the ability to grow and multiply in mammary secretions.
“The only apparent prerequisite for a strain to cause mastitis is the ability to grow and multiply in mammary secretions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gram-negative bacteria are frequently the leading cause of clinical mastitis in well-managed dairies with low bulk tank milk somatic cell counts.
“Gram-negative bacteria are frequently the leading cause of clinical mastitis in well-managed dairies with low bulk tank milk somatic cell counts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliform pathogens generally account for the majority of peracute cases of clinical mastitis in a herd.
“Coliform pathogens generally account for the majority of peracute cases of clinical mastitis in a herd.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the coliform species most commonly isolated from intramammary infections and clinical mastitis.
“Specifically, E. coli and K. pneumoniae are the coliform species most commonly isolated from intramammary infections and clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rate of coliform intramammary infections during lactation is highest at calving and decreases as days in milk advances.
“Rate of coliform intramammary infections during lactation is highest at calving and decreases as days in milk advances.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The prevalence of coliform mastitis in a herd seldom exceeds five percent of quarters because coliform infections tend to be of short duration during lactation.
“The prevalence of coliform mastitis in a herd seldom exceeds five percent of quarters because coliform infections tend to be of short duration during lactation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Approximately 85% of coliform infections will cause clinical mastitis.
“but approximately 85% of coliform infections will cause clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gram-negative bacteria are inept at surviving and multiplying on teat skin.
“Gram-negative bacteria are inept at surviving and multiplying on teat skin.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines effectively reduces the incidence and severity of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria.
“The use of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines effectively reduces the incidence and severity of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.
“A consistent result was that the use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.
“For example, immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently available antibiotics have minimal effect on shortening the duration of intramammary infections caused by coliform bacteria.
“Currently available antibiotics have minimal effect on shortening the duration of intramammary infections caused by coliform bacteria.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A limiting nutritional factor for many coliform bacteria in secretion from involuted mammary glands is iron.
“A limiting nutritional factor for many coliform bacteria in secretion from involuted mammary glands is iron.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliforms isolated from intramammary infections shared a specific enterochelin-iron retrieval system that included a protein on the cellular surface named FepA.
“Coliforms isolated from intramammary infections shared a specific enterochelin-iron retrieval system that included a protein on the cellular surface named FepA.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.
“A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.”
Citations
Cites
Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis.
Hope, A. (2000) · Australian Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb11869.x · Cited by 1,136
Environmental Mastitis: Cause, Prevalence, Prevention
Smith, K. L., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1985) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)80993-0 · Cited by 475
Self-citationField Survey of Clinical Mastitis in Low Somatic Cell Count Herds
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Hoblet, K. H., Schoenberger, P. S., Todhunter, D. A., Hueston, W. D., Pritchard, D. E., Bowman, G. L., Heider, L. E., Brockett, B. L., et al. (1989) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(89)79266-3 · Cited by 266
Self-citationBacterial Counts in Bedding Materials Used on Nine Commercial Dairies
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Hoblet, K. H., Todhunter, D. A., Schoenberger, P. S., Hueston, W. D., Pritchard, D. E., Bowman, G. L., Heider, L. E., Brockett, B. L., et al. (1989) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(89)79103-7 · Cited by 253
Self-citationEnvironmental Pathogens and Intramammary Infection During the Dry Period
Larry Smith, K., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1985) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)80838-9 · Cited by 246
Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow
Hill, A. W. (1981) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/s0034-5288(18)32532-3 · Cited by 216
Low Somatic Cell Count: a Risk Factor for Subsequent Clinical Mastitis in a Dairy Herd
Suriyasathaporn, W., Schukken, Y. H., Nielen, M., & Brand, A. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74991-5 · Cited by 172
The Effect of Selective Dry Cow Treatment on New Intramammary Infections
Berry, E. A., & Hillerton, J. E. (2002) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74059-9 · Cited by 168
HOEBEN, D., BURVENICH, C., TREVISI, E., BERTONI, G., HAMANN, J., BRUCKMAIER, R. M., & BLUM, J. W. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Research · doi:10.1017/s0022029900004489 · Cited by 166
Bacteremia associated with naturally occurring acute coliform mastitis in dairy cows
Wenz, J. R., Barrington, G. M., Garry, F. B., McSweeney, K. D., Dinsmore, R. P., Goodell, G., & Callan, R. J. (2001) · Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · doi:10.2460/javma.2001.219.976 · Cited by 159
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [32][32] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Virulence factors of coliform bacteria, in: Fox L.K., Gay C.C. (Eds.), 1993 Coliform Mastitis Symposium, Veterinary Learning Systems, Trenton, New Jersey, 1993, pp. 36-40. -
- [37][37] Koneman E.W., Allen S.D., Dowell V.R., Sommer H.M., The Enterobacteriaceae, in: Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, J.B. Lippincott Company, New York, New York, USA, 1983, pp. 57124. -
- [44][44] National Mastitis Council, Summary of peerreviewed publications on efficacy of premilking and postmilking teat disinfectants published since 1980. Proc. National Mastitis Council 41st Annual Meeting, national Mastitis Council, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, appendix. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk
Hurley, W. L., & Theil, P. K. (2011) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu3040442 · Cited by 691
“Coliform mastitis is one of the major types of mastitis in cattle [90].”
BackgroundInvited review: Inflammation during the transition to lactation: New adventures with an old flame
Bradford, B. J., Yuan, K., Farney, J. K., Mamedova, L. K., & Carpenter, A. J. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9683 · Cited by 520
“If the infection is caused by gram-negative bacteria, LPS released from the bacterial outer membrane is the main pathogen component initiating inflammatory responses (Hogan and Smith, 2003).”
BackgroundHost-response patterns of intramammary infections in dairy cows
Schukken, Y. H., Günther, J., Fitzpatrick, J., Fontaine, M. C., Goetze, L., Holst, O., Leigh, J. A., Petzl, W., Schuberth, H. J., Sipka, A. S., et al. (2011) · Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology · doi:10.1016/j.vetimm.2011.08.022 · Cited by 333
Epidemiology and Classification of Mastitis
Čobirka, M., Tančin, V., & Sláma, P. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122212 · Cited by 336
“Others: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Arcanobacterium pyogenes Minor pathogens CNS: S. chromogenes, S. haemolyticus, S. epidermidis, S. simulans, S. sciuri Corynebacterium bovis Yeasts Fungi Note: Table modified according to Smith et al. [21], Todhunter et al. [52], Fox and Gay [53], Zadoks et al. [54], Heikkilä et al. [49]…”
BackgroundInfluentialAn update on environmental mastitis: Challenging perceptions
Klaas, I. C., & Zadoks, R. N. (2017) · Transboundary and Emerging Diseases · doi:10.1111/tbed.12704 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogan, J., & Larry Smith, K.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- ORCID
- Hogan, Joe
- Venue
- Veterinary Research
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 507-519
- ISSN
- 0928-4249 (ISSN-L)
- 1297-9716
- OpenAlex
- W4247360602
- Semantic Scholar
- 289dbacacda27e8f1cce071b1a1a249f05968876
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Veterinary Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ohio State University
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal health and immunology
- Keywords
- coliform mastitis, bovine mastitis, Gram-negative bacteria, environmental pathogens, teat canal, iron acquisition, neutrophils, endotoxin, host defense, dairy cattle
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Husbandry, Cattle, Enterobacteriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae Infections, Environmental Microbiology, Female, Lactation, Mammary Glands, Animal, Mastitis, Bovine, Neutrophils, Risk Factors, Vaccination, Virulence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
