The innate immune stimulant Amplimune® is safe to administer to young feedlot cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infectious disease has a significant impact on livestock production. Availability of alternatives to antibiotics to prevent and treat disease is required to reduce reliance on antibiotics while not impacting animal welfare. Innate immune stimulants, such as mycobacterium cell wall fractions (MCWF), are used as alternatives to antibiotics for the treatment and prevention of infectious disease in a number of species including cattle, horses and dogs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of Amplimune®, an MCWF-based immune stimulant, for weaner Angus cattle. METHODS: On day -1 and 0, sixty mixed-sex Angus weaner cattle were transported for 6 h before being inducted and housed in a large single pen, simulating feedlot induction conditions. The cattle were assigned to one of six treatment groups (n = 10 per group): 2 mL Amplimune intramuscularly (2IM); 2 mL Amplimune subcutaneously (2SC); 5 mL Amplimune intramuscularly (5IM); 5 mL Amplimune subcutaneously (5SC); 5 mL saline intramuscularly (SalIM) and 5 mL saline subcutaneously (SalSC) on day 0 following transportation. Body temperature, body weight, concentrations of circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-12) and haematology parameters were measured at various times up to 96 h post-treatment. RESULTS: No adverse effects from Amplimune treatment were observed. Amplimune induced an increase in circulating cytokine TNFα concentrations, total white blood cell count and lymphocyte counts indicative of activation of the innate immune system without causing an excessive inflammatory response. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that Amplimune can be safely administered to beef cattle at the dose rates and via the routes of administration investigated here.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".