Expression of Antimicrobial Peptides in Cecal Tonsils of Chickens Treated with Probiotics and Infected with <i>Salmonella enterica</i> Serovar Typhimurium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several strategies currently exist for control of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium colonization in the chicken intestine, among which the use of probiotics is of note. Little is known about the underlying mechanisms of probiotic-mediated reduction of Salmonella colonization. In this study, we asked whether the effect of probiotics is mediated by antimicrobial peptides, including avian beta-defensins (also called gallinacins) and cathelicidins. Four treatment groups were included in this study: a negative-control group, a probiotic-treated group, a Salmonella-infected group, and a probiotic-treated and Salmonella-infected group. On days 1, 3, and 5 postinfection (p.i.), the cecal tonsils were removed, and RNA was extracted and used for measurement of avian beta-defensin 1 (AvBD1), AvBD2, AvBD4, AvBD6, and cathelicidin gene expression by real-time PCR. The expressions of all avian beta-defensins and cathelicidin were detectable in all groups, irrespective of treatment and time point. Probiotic treatment and Salmonella infection did not affect the expression of any of the investigated genes on day 1 p.i. Furthermore, probiotic treatment had no significant effect on the expression of the genes at either 3 or 5 days p.i. However, the expression levels of all five genes were significantly increased (P < 0.05) in response to Salmonella infection at 3 and 5 days p.i. However, administration of probiotics eliminated the effect of Salmonella infection on the expression of antimicrobial genes. These findings indicate that the expression of antimicrobial peptides may be repressed by probiotics in combination with Salmonella infection or, alternatively, point to the possibility that, due to a reduction in Salmonella load in the intestine, these genes may not be induced.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".