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
Open accessAbstract
Four to 6 wk after parturition, 12 cows in second, fourth, or fifth lactation were experimentally infected in one gland with Escherichia coli. The capacity of chemotaxis, phagocytosis, oxidative burst, and expression of CD11/CD18 receptors to predict the severity of IMI was measured. Bacterial counts in the infected quarter, expressed as area under the curve, and residual milk production in the uninfected quarters were compared to determine severity of the infection. Although these two outcome parameters were highly negatively correlated, regression models with preinfection tests for leukocyte function fitted best with bacterial counts as an outcome parameter. Of the preinfection tests for leukocyte function, chemotaxis best predicted the outcome of the IMI that had been experimentally induced by E. coli. The number of circulating peripheral leukocytes just prior to inoculation was used to predict 52 and 45% of the severity of IMI for bacterial counts and residual milk production, respectively. As a categorical variable, parity predicted 75 and 56% of the severity of IMI expressed as bacterial counts and residual milk production, respectively. Because of the strong effect of parity on the outcome of the experimentally induced mastitis, analysis was performed to discriminate between second parity cows and older cows. Significant differences were found for the number of circulating peripheral leukocytes and for the expression of CD11b/CD18 and CD11c/CD18 receptors between younger and older cows.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation.
“The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation.”
From Coliform mastitis (2003) · cites this paper as [60]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Suppression of Milk Production During Endotoxin-Induced Mastitis
Shuster, D. E., Harmon, R. J., Jackson, J. A., & Hemken, R. W. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78568-8 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Burvenich, C., A. J. Guidry, and M. J. Paape. 1995. Natural defense mechanisms of the lactating and dry mammary gland. Page 3 in Proc. 3rd Int. Mastitis Sem., Tel Aviv, Israel.
- Myllys, V., T. Honkananen-Buzalski, S. Pyo ¨ra ¨la ¨, and H. Rau- tala. 1995. Clinical heifer mastitis. Page 18 in Proc. 3rd Int. Mastitis Sem., Tel Aviv, Israel.
- van Werven, T., J. van den Broek, E. N. Noordhuizen-Stassen, A.J.J.M. Daemen, and A. Brand. 1995. Estimating the immune state of cows based on results of sequential chemotaxis assays. Page 71 in Proc. 3rd Int. Mastitis Sem., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hogan, J., & Larry Smith, K. (2003) · Veterinary Research · doi:10.1051/vetres:2003022 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Werven, T. V., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E. N., Daemen, A. J. J. M., Schukken, Y. H., Brand, A., & Burvenich, C.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-74
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034532897
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 11.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Keywords
- intramammary infection, bovine mastitis, Escherichia coli, dairy cattle, leukocyte function, chemotaxis, phagocytosis, respiratory burst, CD11b/CD18, CD11c/CD18, bacterial counts, parity
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cattle, Chemotaxis, Leukocyte, Escherichia coli Infections, Female, Leukocyte Count, Mastitis, Bovine, Parity, Phagocytosis, Receptors, Leukocyte-Adhesion, Respiratory Burst, CD18 Antigens, CD11 Antigens
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