Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:48:40.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of variation in the uptake of a marker antibody by piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. C. Perry  and
J. H. Watson
G. C. Perry
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Caernarvonshire
J. H. Watson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Caernarvonshire
Get access

Extract

1. Homologous antibodies to Salmonella pullorum were produced by immunising pigs between 100 and 200 lb. live-weight.

2. Standardised doses of antibody, extracted from whole serum after these pigs were slaughtered, were administered to 245 piglets by stomach tube during the first 24 hr. after birth.

3. The marked variation in uptake of the marker antibody, determined by direct agglutination tests on the blood serum of the dosed pigs, was chiefly due to variation between litters. This variation was attributed to maternal effects, associated with agents secreted in varying quantities into colostrum. Concentration of antibody in the dose administered to piglets, time elapsing between birth and dosage and differences between sire families, were subsidiary causes of variation. Possible mechanisms influencing efficiency of antibody absorption were examined and discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 1967 , pp. 377 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, H., Speer, V. C., Quinn, L. Y., Hays, V. W., & Catron, D. V., 1961. Studies on colostrum-acquired immunity and active antibody production in baby pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 20: 323–328.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, A. G. C., Perry, G. C., & Jones, R. E., 1965. The effect of trypsin inhibitor isolated from sow's colostrum on the absorption of gamma-globulin by piglets. Nature (Land.), 207: 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman-Andresen, C., 1961. Pinocytosis in Amoeba proteus. Some observations on the utilization of the membrane during pinocytosis. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Protozoology, 267–270.Google Scholar
Connaway, J. W., 1922. Some studies in swine abortion (a discussion). J. Am. vet. med. Ass., 60: 448–452.Google Scholar
Cramer, C. F., & Dueck, J., 1962. In-vivo transport of calcium from healed Thiry-Velia fistulas in dogs. Am. J. Physiol., 202: 161–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dent, C. E., & Schilling, J. A., 1949. Studies on the absorption of proteins: the amino-acid pattern in the portal blood. Blochem. J., 44: 318–335.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansard, S. L., Sauberlich, H. E., & Comar, C. L., 1951. Blood volume of swine. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med., 78: 544–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoerlein, A. B., 1957. The influence of colostrum on antibody response in baby pigs. J. Immun., 78: 112–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kekwick, R. A., 1940. The serum proteins in multiple myelomatosis. Biochem. J., 34: 1248–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laskowski, M. Jr. & Laskowski, M., 1951. Crystalline trypsin inhibitor from colostrum. J. biol. Chem., 190: 563–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laskowski, M., Kassell, B., & Hagerty, G., 1957. A crystalline trypsin inhibitor from swine colostrum. Biochem. biophys. Acta, 24: 300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecce, J. G., & Morgan, D. O., 1962. Effect of dietary regimen on cessation of intestinal absorption of large molecules (closure) in the neonatal pig and lamb. J. Nutr., 78: 263–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, E. R., Harmon, B. G., Ullrey, D. E., Schmidt, D. A., Luecke, R. W., & Hoefer, J. A., 1962. Antibody absorption, retention and production by the baby pig. J. Anim. Sci., 21: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordbring, F., & Olsson, B., 1957. Electrophoretic and immunological studies on the sera of young pigs. Acta. Soc. Med. Upsalien., 62: 193–212.Google ScholarPubMed
Payne, L. C., & Marsh, C. L., 1962. Gamma-globulin absorption in the baby pig: the non-selective absorption of heterologous globulins and factors influencing absorption time. J. Nutr., 76: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, G. C., & Watson, J. H., 1966. Variation in the absorption of a marker antibody in piglets. 9th International Congress of Animal Production, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, V. C., Brown, H., Quinn, L. Y., & Catron, D. V., 1957. Antibody absorption in the baby pig. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 1046. (Abs.)Google Scholar
Tiselius, A., & Kabat, E. A., 1939. An electrophoretic study of immune sera and purified antibody preparations. J. exp. Med., 69: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veterinary Investigation Service, 1960. A study of the incidence and causes of mortality in pigs. II. Findings of post-mortem examination of pigs. Vet Ree., 72: 1240–1247.Google Scholar
Zetzel, L., & Banks, B. M., 1941. I. Instestinal absorption of an amino-acid mixture in normal subjects. Am. J. dig. Dis., 8: 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar