The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Enhanced mucosal immunity against Eimeria acervulina in broilers fed a Lactobacillus-based probiotic
Open accessAbstract
The effect of feeding a Lactobacillus-based probiotic on intestinal intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL) subpopulations and subsequent protection against coccidiosis was investigated in broiler chickens. Day-old male broilers were fed standard rations without control (CONT) or with a commercial probiotic (PROB) Primalac. Differences in IEL subpopulations were assessed by flow cytometry at 21 d postprobiotic treatment. At 25 d of age, a group of randomly selected birds from each diet was inoculated orally with 10,000 (per bird) sporulated oocysts of Eimeria acervulina and kept on the same diets. Fecal material, sera, and intestinal washes were collected 10 d postchallenge with E. acervulina. Birds on the PROB diet had more IEL expressing the surface markers CD3, CD4, CD8, and alphabetaTCR than those of the CONT diet. The probiotic-fed chickens produced less oocysts (P < 0.0001) compared to the untreated, control group (368 x 10(6) in CONT vs. 89 x 10(6) in PROB). The interferon-gamma levels in both serum and intestinal secretions were not significantly different between the two groups. However, CONT group showed higher antibody levels against a recombinant coccidial antigen in the intestinal secretions than the PROB group. No significant difference was found in serum antibody levels against the same antigen. These results dearly indicate that the probiotic bacteria impacted the local immune response as characterized by altered IEL subpopulations and increased the birds' resistance to E. acervulina as reflected by reduced oocyst shedding.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mountzouris, K. C., Tsirtsikos, P., Kalamara, E., Nitsch, S., Schatzmayr, G., & Fegeros, K. (2007) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/86.2.309 · Cited by 632
Poultry coccidiosis: recent advancements in control measures and vaccine development
Dalloul, R. A., & Lillehoj, H. S. (2006) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1586/14760584.5.1.143 · Cited by 607
Self-citationMountzouris, K. C., Tsitrsikos, P., Palamidi, I., Arvaniti, A., Mohnl, M., Schatzmayr, G., & Fegeros, K. (2010) · Poultry Science · doi:10.3382/ps.2009-00308 · Cited by 490
Coccidiosis in poultry: anticoccidial products, vaccines and other prevention strategies
Peek, H. W., & Landman, W. J. M. (2011) · Veterinary Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01652176.2011.605247 · Cited by 398
Role of nutraceuticals in gut health and growth performance of poultry
Sugiharto, S. (2016) · Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2014.06.001 · Cited by 290
Metadata
- Authors
- Dalloul, R., Lillehoj, H., Shellem, T., & Doerr, J.
- Venue
- Poultry Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 62-66
- ISSN
- 0032-5791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106106898
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enhanced mucosal immunity against Eimeria acervulina in broilers fed a Lactobacillus-based probiotic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ps/82.1.62
- The paper
- Dalloul, R., Lillehoj, H., Shellem, T., & Doerr, J. (2003). Enhanced mucosal immunity against Eimeria acervulina in broilers fed a Lactobacillus-based probiotic. Poultry Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.1.62
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.