MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888860451 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14393

Intramammary infusion of lipopolysaccharide promotes inflammation and alters endometrial gene expression in lactating Holstein cows

2018· article· en· W2888860451 on OpenAlexafffund
Carla Cristian Campos, Ivan Hartling, Manveen Kaur, Artur Cezar de Carvalho Fernandes, Ricarda Maria dos Santos, R.L.A. Cerri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsHaptoglobinEndocrinologyLipopolysaccharideEndometritisEndometriumConceptusInternal medicineLactationMilkingCorpus luteumAndrologyBiologyLuteal phaseMedicineAnimal scienceHormonePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effects of 2 intramammary infusions of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on inflammatory and reproductive parameters and endometrial gene expression of lactating Holstein cows. At 35 ± 7 d in milk, 20 cows were submitted to a Double Ovsynch program and randomly assigned to control (n = 11) and LPS (n = 9) treatments. Cows from the LPS treatment received 2 intramammary infusions of 25 µg of LPS after morning milking on d 5 and 10 post-AI, whereas control cows were infused with only saline. Blood samples were taken and ultrasound scanning of the ovaries was performed during the entire study before and after AI to determine haptoglobin, tumor necrosis factor-α, and progesterone concentrations as well as response to the hormonal protocol and corpus luteum diameter. Milk yield was evaluated and samples were taken for somatic cell count at 0, 10, 24, 34, and 96 h relative to each infusion. Rumen-reticular temperature was recorded using a rumen-reticular bolus logger and summarized hourly. On d 15 post-AI, uterine flushing for conceptus recovery and endometrial biopsies were performed. Samples of endometrium from cows with positive embryo recovery (control = 5; LPS = 6) were submitted to mRNA extraction and quantitative reverse-transcription PCR analysis of 96 target genes. Haptoglobin concentrations in plasma were greater for LPS treatment (control = 0.24 ± 0.07, LPS = 0.89 ± 0.06 optical density), but tumor necrosis factor-α concentrations were similar (control = 0.67 ± 0.11, LPS = 0.46 ± 0.11 ng/mL) between treatments. Lipopolysaccharide reduced milk yield after treatment (control = 34.3 ± 1.5, LPS = 29.4 ± 1.6 kg/d), whereas somatic cell count (log) was greater in LPS-treated cows until 34 h after infusions (control = 2.3 ± 0.1, LPS = 3.3 ± 0.1 cells/mL of milk). Rumen-reticular temperature of LPS cows was elevated between 5 and 10 h after each infusion compared with control cows (control = 39.5 ± 0.1, LPS = 40.1 ± 0.1°C). Progesterone concentration after AI was unaffected by treatment or pregnancy status as well as corpus luteum diameter and conceptus length on d 15. Lipopolysaccharide treatment altered the expression of 13 key genes in the endometrium (mostly upregulated), whereas another 17 tended to be modulated. Modified gene expression included genes related to immune response (PTX3 = 2.34-fold increase; IL6 = 3.42-fold increase; and TCN1 = 2.52-fold increase), adhesion molecules (CADM3 = 1.93-fold increase; MMP19 = 1.49-fold increase; EMMPRIN = 1.20-fold increase; SELL = 1.91-fold increase), Wnt signaling pathway (WNT2, FZD4, and FZD7, all <1.5-fold increase), and interferon-stimulated genes (BMP15 = 0.27-fold decrease; ISG15 = 2.17-fold increase, and MX2 = 2.23-fold increase). In summary, intramammary infusions of LPS were able to trigger an inflammatory response with no effect on corpus luteum diameter and concentration of progesterone in plasma. However, a limited but important set of modulations in the endometrium gene expression at d 15 of gestation was found.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207