Effect of tilmicosin on chemotactic, phagocytic, and bactericidal activities of bovine and porcine alveolar macrophages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate chemotactic, phagocytic, and bactericidal activities of bovine and porcine alveolar macrophages (AM) exposed to tilmicosin. ANIMALS: 12 healthy calves and 12 healthy pigs. PROCEDURES: Lungs were obtained immediately after euthanasia; AM were collected by means of bronchoalveolar lavage and density gradient centrifugation. Chemotactic activity was evaluated by exposing AM to lipopolysaccharide or macrophage inhibitory peptide during incubation with tilmicosin. Phagocytic activity was evaluated by incubating AM with tilmicosin for 24 hours and then with tilmicosin-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhimurium. Bactericidal activity was evaluated by incubating AM with tilmicosin (0, 10, or 20 microg/ml for bovine AM; 0 or 10 microg/ml or 10 microg/ml but washed free of tilmicosin for porcine AM) and then with Mannheimia haemolytica (bovine AM) or with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae or Pasteurella multocida (porcine AM). RESULTS: Tilmicosin had no significant effects on chemotactic or phagocytic activities of bovine or porcine AM. The time-course of bactericidal activity was best described by polynomial equations. Time to cessation of bacterial growth and area under the time versus bacterial number curve were significantly affected by incubation of AM with tilmicosin. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results show that bactericidal activity of bovine and porcine AM was enhanced by tilmicosin, but not in proportion to the reported ability of AM to concentrate tilmicosin intracellularly. With or without exposure to tilmicosin, the time-course of bactericidal activity of bovine AM against M haemolytica and of porcine AM against A pleuropneumoniae or P multocida was too complex to be reduced to a simple linear equation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".