J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2006. 84:2367-2373. doi:10.2527/jas.2005-564
© 2006 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ding, M. X.
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, Z. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ding, M. X.
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, Z. H.

ANIMAL GROWTH, PHYSIOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTION

Effects of cyadox and olaquindox on intestinal mucosal immunity and on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli in piglets

M. X. Ding, Y. L. Wang, H. L. Zhu and Z. H. Yuan1

National Reference Laboratory of Veterinary Drug Residues, MOA Key Laboratory of Food Safety Evaluation, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, People’s Republic of China

1 Corresponding author: yuan5802{at}public.wh.hb.cn

A 2 x 3 factorial arrangement of treatments was used to determine the effects of olaquindox and cyadox on the intestinal mucosal immune response and on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli in Landrace x Large White barrows that had been orally given 1010 cfu of E. coli (O139:K88). Factors included 1) E. coli inoculation or no inoculation, and 2) no antimicrobial, 100 mg of olaquindox/kg, and 100 mg of cyadox/kg in the basal diet, respectively. The effects of cyadox and olaquindox were assessed in terms of fecal shedding of E. coli, the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IEL), immunoglobulin A-positive cells (APC) in the intestinal lamina propria, and ADG. There was no difference in the fecal shedding of total E. coli or the inoculated E. coli between olaquindox-supplemented pigs and cyadox-supplemented pigs during the experiment. However, fecal shedding of the inoculated E. coli in olaquindox- or cyadox-supplemented pigs was less (P < 0.05) than that in nonsupplemented pigs. Escherichia coli inoculation increased IEL and APC in the jejunum and ileum, but olaquindox or cyadox decreased IEL and APC (P < 0.05). Jejunal APC in cyadox-supplemented pigs was less (P < 0.05) than that in olaquindox-supplemented pigs. Escherichia coli inoculation reduced (P < 0.05) ADG, whereas the supplementations improved ADG (P < 0.01) during the experiment. Average daily gain in cyadox-supplemented pigs was greater (P < 0.05) than that in olaquindox-supplemented pigs. The data indicated that olaquindox and cyadox reduced the number of intestinal E. coli and suppressed E. coli-induced immune activation, which might be responsible for the enhanced growth that was observed.

Key Words: Escherichia coli • immunoglobulin A-positive cell • intraepithelial lymphocyte • pig • quinoxaline






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Animal Science.