Single-step production of autologous bovine platelet concentrate for clinical applications in cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platelet concentrate (PC) is an alternative therapy to treat mastitis in dairy cattle and is an alternative treatment for reproduction problems such as endometritis. Unfortunately, double-centrifugation processing methods described are time-consuming, require specialized laboratory equipment, and are usually done in a heterologous way, which risks herd health. To overcome this limitation, we evaluated single-step bovine PC processing methods readily applicable to a farm setting using an autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) production system. We investigated the hematologic findings, cytokines, and growth factors of the obtained PC samples. Autologous conditioned plasma was prepared using whole blood (WB) from 4 cows (group 1) using single-step centrifugation and 16 different processing methods. The 2 protocols that yielded the highest ratio of platelet to white blood cell (WBC) concentration were ACP-1 [720 × g (2,200 rpm), 5 min] and ACP-2 [929 × g (2,500 rpm), 3 min]. They were subsequently reproduced and compared using WB from 8 cows (group 2). Hematologic findings were quantified, IL-1β (cytokine) and growth factors [platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor (TGF)-β, bovine fibroblast growth factor (b-FGF)] were measured, and enrichment factors were compared between samples and processing methods. Hematological characteristics and platelet enrichment varied markedly among tested protocols and all were statistically different from WB. Protocol ACP-2 resulted in significantly greater platelet enrichment (mean 169% of WB) than ACP-1 (125% of WB). We found no significant difference between the 2 ACP preparation protocols with regard to leukocyte reduction (7.53-9.75% WBC compared with WB) or growth factor enrichment (124-125% PDGF, 95-100% TGF-β, 102-104% b-FGF, and 56-74% IL-1β compared with WB). In conclusion, both ACP protocols yielded a platelet concentration shown to promote healing for clinical applications in cattle, and the ACP-2 protocol resulted in a greater degree of platelet enrichment. Therefore, this protocol could be used for ACP production for clinical applications in cattle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".