草业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (6): 211-220.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021171
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
崔玉晶(), 高佩, 文娟, OKYERE Kumi Samuel, 胡延春()
收稿日期:
2021-04-28
修回日期:
2021-09-13
出版日期:
2022-06-20
发布日期:
2022-05-11
通讯作者:
胡延春
作者简介:
E-mail: hychun114@163.com基金资助:
Yu-jing CUI(), Pei GAO, Juan WEN, Kumi Samuel OKYERE, Yan-chun HU()
Received:
2021-04-28
Revised:
2021-09-13
Online:
2022-06-20
Published:
2022-05-11
Contact:
Yan-chun HU
摘要:
为探究紫茎泽兰对动物肠道损伤及致毒机制,本试验选取16只7周龄雄性SD大鼠经7 d适应期后随机分为对照组(饲喂不含紫茎泽兰饲料,10 g·100 g-1 BW)与试验组(饲喂含30%紫茎泽兰饲料,10 g·100 g-1 BW),试验周期为14 d,试验结束后取各肠段(取十二指肠、空肠、回肠、盲肠、结肠和直肠)组织样品,观察结构损伤,计数免疫细胞,测定sIgA(secretory immunoglobulin A,sIgA)和炎性细胞因子分泌量。结果表明:与对照组相比,紫茎泽兰可使十二指肠绒毛出血及顶端轻度坏死脱落,肠绒毛高度、隐窝深度及其比值极显著增加(P<0.01);空肠充血并伴有绒毛顶端糜烂性坏死脱落,绒毛高度及绒毛高度与隐窝深度比值极显著增加(P<0.01);回肠大量肠绒毛顶端凝固性坏死,并伴有出血与炎性浸润,绒毛高度、隐窝深度及其比值极显著增加(P<0.01);盲肠水肿及充血;结肠淋巴细胞增多、直肠大量淋巴细胞浸润及淋巴细胞增生,其中以回肠和直肠机械损伤最为严重,回肠评分增加722.36%,直肠评分增加976.00%;试验组各肠段上皮内淋巴细胞(intestinal intraepithelial lymphocytes, IELs)、固有层淋巴细胞(lamina propria lymphocytes, LPLs)和杯状细胞(goblet cells, GCs)数量极显著增加(P<0.01),同时还可极显著增加sIgA的分泌量(P<0.01),极显著增加促炎因子IL-1β、IL-2、TNF-α和IFN-γ的表达量(P<0.01),极显著降低抑炎因子IL-4、IL-10的表达(P<0.01),激活肠道炎症反应,从而破坏肠道黏膜免疫屏障,造成肠道损伤。
崔玉晶, 高佩, 文娟, OKYERE Kumi Samuel, 胡延春. 紫茎泽兰对大鼠肠道结构和肠道黏膜免疫屏障的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(6): 211-220.
Yu-jing CUI, Pei GAO, Juan WEN, Kumi Samuel OKYERE, Yan-chun HU. The effect of Ageratina adenophora on the structure of various intestinal segments and on intestinal mucosal immune barrier function in rats[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(6): 211-220.
表现Appearance | 评分Score |
---|---|
水肿Edema | 0无NO,1有Yes |
出血Hemorrhage | 0无NO,1有Yes |
肌层增厚Muscle thickening | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
细胞浸润Cellular infiltration | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
黏膜结构破坏Loss of mucosal architecture | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
表1 病理损伤组织学评分
Table 1 Criteria for histological scoring of damage
表现Appearance | 评分Score |
---|---|
水肿Edema | 0无NO,1有Yes |
出血Hemorrhage | 0无NO,1有Yes |
肌层增厚Muscle thickening | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
细胞浸润Cellular infiltration | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
黏膜结构破坏Loss of mucosal architecture | 0无NO,1轻度Light,2中度Moderate,3重度Heavy |
基因名称Gene | 引物Primers | 引物序列Sequence(5'-3') |
---|---|---|
IL-1β | Forward | GACTTCACCATGGAACCCGT |
Reverse | CAGGGAGGGAAACACACGTT | |
IL-2 | Forward | GCAGCGTGTGTTGGATTTGA |
Reverse | GGCTCATCATCGAATTGGCAC | |
IL-4 | Forward | AAGGAACACCACGGAGAACG |
Reverse | CAGACCGCTGACACCTCTAC | |
IL-10 | Forward | TTGAACCACCCGGCATCTAC |
Reverse | CCAAGGAGTTGCTCCCGTTA | |
TNF-α | Forward | AACTCAGCGAGGACACCAAG |
Reverse | GCCAGTGTATGAGAGGGACG | |
IFN-γ | Forward | GGCAAAAGGACGGTAACACG |
Reverse | TCTGTGGGTTGTTCACCTCG | |
β-actin | Forward | ACGGTCAGGTCATCACTATCG |
Reverse | GGCATAGAGGTCTTTACGGATG |
表2 用于实时荧光定量 PCR 分析的引物序列
Table 2 Primers used for the real-time PCR analysis
基因名称Gene | 引物Primers | 引物序列Sequence(5'-3') |
---|---|---|
IL-1β | Forward | GACTTCACCATGGAACCCGT |
Reverse | CAGGGAGGGAAACACACGTT | |
IL-2 | Forward | GCAGCGTGTGTTGGATTTGA |
Reverse | GGCTCATCATCGAATTGGCAC | |
IL-4 | Forward | AAGGAACACCACGGAGAACG |
Reverse | CAGACCGCTGACACCTCTAC | |
IL-10 | Forward | TTGAACCACCCGGCATCTAC |
Reverse | CCAAGGAGTTGCTCCCGTTA | |
TNF-α | Forward | AACTCAGCGAGGACACCAAG |
Reverse | GCCAGTGTATGAGAGGGACG | |
IFN-γ | Forward | GGCAAAAGGACGGTAACACG |
Reverse | TCTGTGGGTTGTTCACCTCG | |
β-actin | Forward | ACGGTCAGGTCATCACTATCG |
Reverse | GGCATAGAGGTCTTTACGGATG |
肠段Part | 对照组评分Control group score | 试验组评分Treatment group score | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 0.63±0.48 | 3.75±0.83 | <0.01 |
空肠Jejunum | 0.88±0.78 | 5.38±0.70 | <0.01 |
回肠Ileum | 0.76±0.66 | 6.25±0.66 | <0.01 |
盲肠Cecum | 0.75±0.66 | 3.50±0.50 | <0.01 |
结肠Colon | 0.63±0.48 | 3.38±0.48 | <0.01 |
直肠Rectum | 0.50±0.50 | 5.38±0.70 | <0.01 |
表3 病理损伤组织学评分结果
Table 3 The results of A. adenophora on criteria for histological scoring of damage (n=8)
肠段Part | 对照组评分Control group score | 试验组评分Treatment group score | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 0.63±0.48 | 3.75±0.83 | <0.01 |
空肠Jejunum | 0.88±0.78 | 5.38±0.70 | <0.01 |
回肠Ileum | 0.76±0.66 | 6.25±0.66 | <0.01 |
盲肠Cecum | 0.75±0.66 | 3.50±0.50 | <0.01 |
结肠Colon | 0.63±0.48 | 3.38±0.48 | <0.01 |
直肠Rectum | 0.50±0.50 | 5.38±0.70 | <0.01 |
图1 紫茎泽兰对大鼠肠道的病理学损伤a、b:十二指肠,箭头所指处为肠绒毛顶部出血,400×;c、d:空肠,箭头所指处为肠绒毛糜烂性坏死并伴有出血,400×;e、f:回肠,箭头所指处为绒毛顶端凝固性坏死,并伴有出血,400×;g、h:盲肠,箭头所指处为水肿,80×;i、j:结肠,箭头所指处为淋巴细胞浸润,400×;k、l:直肠,箭头所指处为炎性细胞增生,400×。A:HE染色,B:AB-PAS染色。a, b: Duodenum, arrow represent hemorrhage at the top of intestinal villi indicated, 400×; c, d: Jejunum, arrow represent erosion, necrosis and hemorrhage of intestinal villi, 400×; e, f: Ileum, arrow shows coagulative necrosis and hemorrhage at the tip of villi, 400×; g, h: Cecum, arrow represents edema, 80×; i, j: Colon, arrow represents lymphocytic infiltration, 400×; k, l: Rectum, arrow indicates inflammatory cell proliferation, 400×. A: HE staining, B: AB-PAS staining.
Fig.1 The effeccts of A.adenophora on the pathological damage of intestine in rats
肠段Part | 指标Parameter | 对照组Control group | 试验组Treatment group | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 487.03±30.07 | 405.23±39.68 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 76.90±14.64 | 268.59±19.85 | <0.01 | |
VH/CD | 6.24 ±0.50 | 1.72±0.18 | <0.01 | |
空肠Jejunum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 409.40±14.58 | 308.19±21.19 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 89.53±12.78 | 102.03±27.42 | 0.195 | |
VH/CD | 4.80±0.44 | 3.23±0.93 | <0.01 | |
回肠Ileum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 368.29±24.56 | 291.46±16.84 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 76.07±11.97 | 154.37±19.85 | <0.01 | |
VH/CD | 5.18±0.57 | 1.92±0.30 | <0.01 |
表4 紫茎泽兰对大鼠小肠形态学的影响
Table 4 The effects of A. adenophora on the morphology of small intestine in rats (n=8)
肠段Part | 指标Parameter | 对照组Control group | 试验组Treatment group | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 487.03±30.07 | 405.23±39.68 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 76.90±14.64 | 268.59±19.85 | <0.01 | |
VH/CD | 6.24 ±0.50 | 1.72±0.18 | <0.01 | |
空肠Jejunum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 409.40±14.58 | 308.19±21.19 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 89.53±12.78 | 102.03±27.42 | 0.195 | |
VH/CD | 4.80±0.44 | 3.23±0.93 | <0.01 | |
回肠Ileum | 绒毛高度VH (μm) | 368.29±24.56 | 291.46±16.84 | <0.01 |
隐窝深度CD (μm) | 76.07±11.97 | 154.37±19.85 | <0.01 | |
VH/CD | 5.18±0.57 | 1.92±0.30 | <0.01 |
肠段Part | 指标Parameter | 对照组Control group | 试验组Treatment group | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | IELs | 8.80±0.83 | 14.20±1.30 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 59.40±6.10 | 74.40±8.01 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 83.00±2.00 | 109.33±1.53 | 0.01 | |
空肠Jejunum | IELs | 8.50±0.83 | 14.20±0.83 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 71.20±5.58 | 84.00±6.41 | 0.01 | |
GCs | 98.00±1.00 | 137.00±5.57 | <0.01 | |
回肠Ileum | IELs | 7.80±0.83 | 17.60±1.14 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 80.80±3.70 | 108.20±8.87 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 101.00±2.00 | 149.67±2.08 | <0.01 | |
盲肠Cecum | IELs | 5.70±0.83 | 7.80±0.83 | 0.005 |
LPLs | 15.20±1.92 | 23.80±0.83 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 127.00±4.58 | 173.67±2.08 | <0.01 | |
结肠Colon | IELs | 4.60±0.54 | 9.00±1.22 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 25.00±2.34 | 39.80±1.64 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 284.00±7.55 | 325.33±2.08 | <0.01 | |
直肠Rectum | IELs | 3.00±1.00 | 5.80±0.83 | 0.01 |
LPLs | 34.00±3.58 | 59.40±7.04 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 307.33±7.37 | 481.67±10.60 | <0.01 |
表5 紫茎泽兰对大鼠肠道IELs、LPLs和GCs数量的影响
Table 5 The effects of A. adenophora on the number of IELs, LPLs and GCs in rats (number, n=8)
肠段Part | 指标Parameter | 对照组Control group | 试验组Treatment group | P值P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | IELs | 8.80±0.83 | 14.20±1.30 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 59.40±6.10 | 74.40±8.01 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 83.00±2.00 | 109.33±1.53 | 0.01 | |
空肠Jejunum | IELs | 8.50±0.83 | 14.20±0.83 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 71.20±5.58 | 84.00±6.41 | 0.01 | |
GCs | 98.00±1.00 | 137.00±5.57 | <0.01 | |
回肠Ileum | IELs | 7.80±0.83 | 17.60±1.14 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 80.80±3.70 | 108.20±8.87 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 101.00±2.00 | 149.67±2.08 | <0.01 | |
盲肠Cecum | IELs | 5.70±0.83 | 7.80±0.83 | 0.005 |
LPLs | 15.20±1.92 | 23.80±0.83 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 127.00±4.58 | 173.67±2.08 | <0.01 | |
结肠Colon | IELs | 4.60±0.54 | 9.00±1.22 | <0.01 |
LPLs | 25.00±2.34 | 39.80±1.64 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 284.00±7.55 | 325.33±2.08 | <0.01 | |
直肠Rectum | IELs | 3.00±1.00 | 5.80±0.83 | 0.01 |
LPLs | 34.00±3.58 | 59.40±7.04 | <0.01 | |
GCs | 307.33±7.37 | 481.67±10.60 | <0.01 |
肠段 Part | 对照组 Control group | 试验组 Treatment group | P值 P-value |
---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 12.08±0.45 | 22.14±0.64 | <0.01 |
空肠Jejunum | 10.15±0.26 | 22.24±0.80 | <0.01 |
回肠Ileum | 13.32±0.35 | 24.74±1.12 | <0.01 |
盲肠Cecum | 16.29±0.26 | 26.34±0.38 | <0.01 |
结肠Colon | 18.07±0.50 | 20.39±0.61 | <0.01 |
直肠Rectum | 14.97±0.52 | 21.54±0.69 | <0.01 |
表6 紫茎泽兰对大鼠肠道黏膜sIgA含量的影响
Table 6 The effects of A. adenophora on the sIgA in rats (n=8, μg·mL-1 )
肠段 Part | 对照组 Control group | 试验组 Treatment group | P值 P-value |
---|---|---|---|
十二指肠Duodenum | 12.08±0.45 | 22.14±0.64 | <0.01 |
空肠Jejunum | 10.15±0.26 | 22.24±0.80 | <0.01 |
回肠Ileum | 13.32±0.35 | 24.74±1.12 | <0.01 |
盲肠Cecum | 16.29±0.26 | 26.34±0.38 | <0.01 |
结肠Colon | 18.07±0.50 | 20.39±0.61 | <0.01 |
直肠Rectum | 14.97±0.52 | 21.54±0.69 | <0.01 |
肠段 Part | 方法 Method | 组别及P值 Group and P-value | 指标Parameter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IL-1β | IL-2 | IL-4 | IL-10 | TNF-α | IFN-γ | |||
十二指肠 Duodenum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.01±0.08 | 1.04±0.09 | 1.03±0.08 | 0.98±0.11 | 1.04±0.12 | 0.96±0.06 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.14±0.13 | 2.40±0.24 | 0.87±0.14 | 0.74±0.06 | 1.49±0.17 | 1.84±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | 0.052 | <0.01 | 0.026 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 39.90±0.17 | 1410.29±6.45 | 121.72±0.84 | 52.57±0.79 | 352.77±0.91 | 2517.23±3.65 | |
试验组Treatment group | 43.48±0.21 | 1442.01±23.23 | 119.02±2.69 | 51.68±0.69 | 369.12±15.62 | 2666.88±37.09 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.080 | 0.179 | 0.151 | 0.144 | <0.01 | ||
空肠 Jejunum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 0.97±0.09 | 0.98±0.08 | 1.02±0.01 | 1.04±0.08 | 1.09±0.07 | 1.02±0.03 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.26±0.12 | 1.45±0.31 | 0.49±0.25 | 0.73±0.11 | 1.34±0.14 | 1.36±0.30 | ||
P值P-value | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.004 | 0.016 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 42.01±0.88 | 1418.62±19.80 | 119.18±0.83 | 59.66±1.55 | 342.97±8.00 | 2363.49±16.32 | |
试验组Treatment group | 42.94±0.40 | 1466.51±20.04 | 105.23±3.84 | 52.98±1.65 | 357.81±9.62 | 2450.68±201.28 | ||
P值P-value | 0.072 | 0.006 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.035 | 0.297 | ||
回肠 Ileum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 0.98±0.05 | 1.02±0.10 | 0.96±0.08 | 0.99±0.11 | 1.00±0.12 | 0.94±0.06 |
试验组Treatment group | 3.56±0.27 | 3.48±0.39 | 0.86±0.08 | 0.91±0.11 | 3.08±0.46 | 4.00±0.46 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.064 | 0.216 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 38.14±0.19 | 1500.82±10.96 | 118.99±2.97 | 59.48±0.35 | 331.15±2.06 | 2303.32±62.23 | |
试验组Treatment group | 43.73±0.82 | 1545.12±31.57 | 106.34±6.70 | 52.63±2.32 | 367.07±6.32 | 2489.40±106.80 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.050 | 0.006 | 0.002 | <0.01 | 0.012 | ||
盲肠 Cecum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.03±0.89 | 1.01±0.09 | 1.07±0.07 | 1.03±0.08 | 0.99±0.08 | 0.96±0.05 |
试验组Treatment group | 2.55±0.29 | 1.63±0.21 | 0.26±0.06 | 0.24±0.03 | 1.68±0.27 | 1.28±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 37.17±0.59 | 1368.79±14.95 | 116.60±3.15 | 55.23±1.07 | 333.32±4.14 | 2333.64±10.94 | |
试验组Treatment group | 44.81±1.15 | 1472.75±25.43 | 101.38±8.15 | 52.38±2.22 | 348.93±7.35 | 2495.92±39.10 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.019 | 0.042 | 0.016 | <0.01 | ||
结肠 Colon | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.02±0.10 | 1.03±0.06 | 1.07±0.05 | 1.01±0.09 | 1.03±0.07 | 1.05±0.09 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.68±0.45 | 1.36±0.08 | 0.56±0.14 | 0.70±0.12 | 1.29±0.19 | 1.26±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | 0.004 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.008 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 38.56±1.11 | 1412.89±3.17 | 117.89±1.43 | 56.55±1.39 | 316.60±3.47 | 2242.47±101.58 | |
试验组Treatment group | 47.83±1.91 | 1511.48±33.81 | 108.74±5.04 | 52.83±3.49 | 320.47±3.85 | 2400.54±142.95 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.175 | 0.086 | ||
直肠 Rectum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.01±0.07 | 0.97±0.12 | 1.10±0.05 | 1.05±0.09 | 0.97±0.04 | 0.93±0.07 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.38±0.14 | 2.19±0.09 | 0.68±0.14 | 0.25±0.10 | 1.37±0.15 | 2.31±0.34 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 41.63±1.26 | 1368.12±5.14 | 119.91±3.40 | 55.68±1.11 | 341.04±8.02 | 2256.81±97.13 | |
试验组Treatment group | 48.06±1.50 | 1464.16±42.05 | 111.91±5.57 | 49.92±5.03 | 360.78±3.30 | 2468.43±32.65 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.005 | 0.032 | 0.054 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
表7 紫茎泽兰对大鼠肠道黏膜细胞因子表达的影响
Table 7 The effects of A. adenophora on expression of cytokines in gut mucosa of rats (n=8, pg·mL-1)
肠段 Part | 方法 Method | 组别及P值 Group and P-value | 指标Parameter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IL-1β | IL-2 | IL-4 | IL-10 | TNF-α | IFN-γ | |||
十二指肠 Duodenum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.01±0.08 | 1.04±0.09 | 1.03±0.08 | 0.98±0.11 | 1.04±0.12 | 0.96±0.06 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.14±0.13 | 2.40±0.24 | 0.87±0.14 | 0.74±0.06 | 1.49±0.17 | 1.84±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | 0.052 | <0.01 | 0.026 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 39.90±0.17 | 1410.29±6.45 | 121.72±0.84 | 52.57±0.79 | 352.77±0.91 | 2517.23±3.65 | |
试验组Treatment group | 43.48±0.21 | 1442.01±23.23 | 119.02±2.69 | 51.68±0.69 | 369.12±15.62 | 2666.88±37.09 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.080 | 0.179 | 0.151 | 0.144 | <0.01 | ||
空肠 Jejunum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 0.97±0.09 | 0.98±0.08 | 1.02±0.01 | 1.04±0.08 | 1.09±0.07 | 1.02±0.03 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.26±0.12 | 1.45±0.31 | 0.49±0.25 | 0.73±0.11 | 1.34±0.14 | 1.36±0.30 | ||
P值P-value | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.004 | 0.016 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 42.01±0.88 | 1418.62±19.80 | 119.18±0.83 | 59.66±1.55 | 342.97±8.00 | 2363.49±16.32 | |
试验组Treatment group | 42.94±0.40 | 1466.51±20.04 | 105.23±3.84 | 52.98±1.65 | 357.81±9.62 | 2450.68±201.28 | ||
P值P-value | 0.072 | 0.006 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.035 | 0.297 | ||
回肠 Ileum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 0.98±0.05 | 1.02±0.10 | 0.96±0.08 | 0.99±0.11 | 1.00±0.12 | 0.94±0.06 |
试验组Treatment group | 3.56±0.27 | 3.48±0.39 | 0.86±0.08 | 0.91±0.11 | 3.08±0.46 | 4.00±0.46 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.064 | 0.216 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 38.14±0.19 | 1500.82±10.96 | 118.99±2.97 | 59.48±0.35 | 331.15±2.06 | 2303.32±62.23 | |
试验组Treatment group | 43.73±0.82 | 1545.12±31.57 | 106.34±6.70 | 52.63±2.32 | 367.07±6.32 | 2489.40±106.80 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.050 | 0.006 | 0.002 | <0.01 | 0.012 | ||
盲肠 Cecum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.03±0.89 | 1.01±0.09 | 1.07±0.07 | 1.03±0.08 | 0.99±0.08 | 0.96±0.05 |
试验组Treatment group | 2.55±0.29 | 1.63±0.21 | 0.26±0.06 | 0.24±0.03 | 1.68±0.27 | 1.28±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 37.17±0.59 | 1368.79±14.95 | 116.60±3.15 | 55.23±1.07 | 333.32±4.14 | 2333.64±10.94 | |
试验组Treatment group | 44.81±1.15 | 1472.75±25.43 | 101.38±8.15 | 52.38±2.22 | 348.93±7.35 | 2495.92±39.10 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.019 | 0.042 | 0.016 | <0.01 | ||
结肠 Colon | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.02±0.10 | 1.03±0.06 | 1.07±0.05 | 1.01±0.09 | 1.03±0.07 | 1.05±0.09 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.68±0.45 | 1.36±0.08 | 0.56±0.14 | 0.70±0.12 | 1.29±0.19 | 1.26±0.11 | ||
P值P-value | 0.004 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.008 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 38.56±1.11 | 1412.89±3.17 | 117.89±1.43 | 56.55±1.39 | 316.60±3.47 | 2242.47±101.58 | |
试验组Treatment group | 47.83±1.91 | 1511.48±33.81 | 108.74±5.04 | 52.83±3.49 | 320.47±3.85 | 2400.54±142.95 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.175 | 0.086 | ||
直肠 Rectum | RT-qPCR | 对照组Control group | 1.01±0.07 | 0.97±0.12 | 1.10±0.05 | 1.05±0.09 | 0.97±0.04 | 0.93±0.07 |
试验组Treatment group | 1.38±0.14 | 2.19±0.09 | 0.68±0.14 | 0.25±0.10 | 1.37±0.15 | 2.31±0.34 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
ELISA | 对照组Control group | 41.63±1.26 | 1368.12±5.14 | 119.91±3.40 | 55.68±1.11 | 341.04±8.02 | 2256.81±97.13 | |
试验组Treatment group | 48.06±1.50 | 1464.16±42.05 | 111.91±5.57 | 49.92±5.03 | 360.78±3.30 | 2468.43±32.65 | ||
P值P-value | <0.01 | 0.005 | 0.032 | 0.054 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
1 | Auld B A. The distribution of Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng on the far north coast of New Sooth Wales. Journal and Proceedings Royal Society of New South Wales, 1969, 102: 159-161. |
2 | Lu P, Sang W G, Ma K P. Progress and prospects in research of an exotic invasive species, Eupatorium adenophorum. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2005, 29(6): 1029-1037. |
3 | Sang W, Zhu L, Axmacher J C. Invasion pattern of Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng in southern China. Biological Invasions, 2010, 12(6): 1721-1730. |
4 | Song H X. Effects of invasive plant Eupatorium adenophorum on soil nutrients and biological diversity. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 18(41): 51-56. |
宋红霞. 紫茎泽兰入侵对生物多样性及土壤养分的影响. 广东农业科学, 2014, 18(41): 51-56. | |
5 | Nurudeen O, Shamsudeen F, Musa G, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in food animals and the environment in nigeria: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15(6): 1284-1307. |
6 | Sun W, Zeng C R, Liu S, et al. Ageratina adenophora induces mice hepatotoxicity via ROS-NLRP3-mediated pyroptosis. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1): 16032. |
7 | Kaushal V, Sharma O P, Kurade N P, et al. Hepatotoxicity in rat induced by partially purified toxins from Eupatorium adenophorum (Ageratina adenophora). Toxicon : Official Journal of the International Society on Toxinology, 2001, 39(5): 615-619. |
8 | Ren Z H, Gao P, Samuel K O, et al. Ageratina adenophora inhibits spleen immune function in rats via the loss of the FRC network and Th1-Th2 cell ratio elevation. Toxins (Basel), 2021, 13(5): 309-322. |
9 | Sun W, Zeng C R, Yue D, et al. Ageratina adenophora causes spleen toxicity by inducing oxidative stress and pyroptosis in mice. Royal Society Open Science, 2019, 6(7): 190127-19138. |
10 | Appleyard C B, Wallace J L. Reactivation of hapten-induced colitis and its prevention by anti-inflammatory drugs. American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, 1995, 269(1): 119-125. |
11 | Fang T, Liu G, Cao W, et al. Spermine: New insights into the intestinal development and serum antioxidant status of suckling piglets. Rsc Advances, 2016, 6: 31323-31335. |
12 | Deng F, Zhu Q X, Li J, et al. The distribution and counts of intraepithelial lymphocytes in human fetal intestine. Jiangxi Medical Journal, 2003(5): 320-322. |
邓峰, 朱清仙, 黎静, 等. 人胎儿小肠上皮内淋巴细胞分布及其计数. 江西医药, 2003(5): 320-322. | |
13 | Nasseri M S, Mofid A, Nouraie M, et al. The normal range of duodenal intraepithelial lymphocytes. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 2008, 11(2): 136-142. |
14 | Du L, Sun J, Ge L P, et al. Effect of intestinal flora on animal early development of immune system. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2017, 6(53): 15-19. |
杜蕾, 孙静, 葛良鹏, 等. 肠道菌群对动物免疫系统早期发育的影响. 中国畜牧杂志, 2017, 6(53): 15-19. | |
15 | Peng Q H. Effect of different levels of ADF diets on growth performance、intestinal mucosal immunity and caecum fermentation of weaning rabbits. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2008. |
彭全辉. 不同ADF水平饲粮对肉兔生产性能、肠道粘膜免疫及盲肠发酵的影响. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2008. | |
16 | Chen H, Mao X, He J, et al. Dietary fibre affects intestinal mucosal barrier function and regulates intestinal bacteria in weaning piglets. British Journal of Nutrition, 2013, 110(10): 1837-1848. |
17 | Peterson L W, Artis D. Intestinal epithelial cells: Regulators of barrier function and immune homeostasis. Nature Reviews Immunology, 2014, 14(3): 141-153. |
18 | Jie W, Juan L Z. Probiotics decrease the stress response and intestinal permeability of term neonates with low apgar scores. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 2019, 18: 4322-4328. |
19 | Xu P H. Study on the interaction between intestinal mucosal epithelial cells and immune cells. Beijing: Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 2005. |
徐鹏辉. 肠黏膜上皮细胞与免疫细胞相互作用的研究. 北京: 中国人民解放军军事医学科学院, 2005. | |
20 | Vereecke L, Beyaert R, Van L G. Enterocyte death and intestinal barrier maintenance in homeostasis and disease. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 2011, 17(10): 584-593. |
21 | Shires J, Theodoridis E, Hayday A C. Biological insights into TCRgammadelta+ and TCRalphabeta+ intraepithelial lymphocytes provided by serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE). Immunity, 2001, 15(3): 419-434. |
22 | Tang F, Chen Z, Ciszewski C, et al. Cytosolic PLA2 is required for CTL-mediated immunopathology of celiac disease via NKG2D and IL-15. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 2009, 206(3): 707-719. |
23 | Zook E C, Kee B L. Development of innate lymphoid cells. Nature Immunology, 2016, 17(7): 775-782. |
24 | Klose C S, Artis D. Innate lymphoid cells as regulators of immunity, inflammation and tissue homeostasis. Nature Immunology, 2016, 17(7): 765-774. |
25 | Montalban A A, Chaparro M, Gisbert J P, et al. The innate immune system in the gastrointestinal tract: Role of intraepithelial lymphocytes and lamina propria innate lymphoid cells in intestinal inflammation. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2018, 24(8): 1649-1659. |
26 | Lin M, Du L, Brandtzaeg P, et al. IgA subclass switch recombination in human mucosal and systemic immune compartments. Mucosal Immunol, 2014, 7(3): 511-520. |
27 | Strugnell R A, Wijburg O L. The role of secretory antibodies in infection immunity. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2010, 8(9): 656-667. |
28 | Saitou M, Fujimoto K, Doi Y, et al. Occludin-deficient embryonic stem cells can differentiate into polarized epithelial cells bearing tight junctions. The Journal of Cell Biology, 1998, 141(2): 397-408. |
29 | Buckley A, Turner J R. Cell biology of tight junction barrier regulation and mucosal disease. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2018,10(1).doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a029314.. |
30 | Clayburgh D R, Barrett T A, Tang Y, et al. Epithelial myosin light chain kinase-dependent barrier dysfunction mediates T cell activation-induced diarrhea in vivo. The Journal of Clinical Investigation: The Official Journal of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2005, 115(10): 2702-2715. |
31 | Weber C R, Liang G H, Wang Y, et al. Claudin-2-dependent paracellular channels are dynamically gated. Elife, 2015, 4: e9906. doi:10.7554/eLife. 0990. |
32 | Wang F, Schwarz B T, Graham W V, et al. IFN-r-induced TNFR2 expression is required for TNF-dependent intestinal epithelial barrier dysfunction. Gastroenterology, 2006, 131(4): 1153-1163. |
33 | Yang H, Shi X F, Gui G H, et al. Inhibitory effect of Clostridium butyricum on inflammatory reaction of porcine intestinal epithelial cells induced by enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(12): 5688-5695. |
杨华, 施杏芬, 桂国弘, 等. 丁酸梭菌对产肠毒素大肠杆菌刺激猪肠道上皮细胞炎症反应的抑制效果. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(12): 5688-5695. | |
34 | Wang Q M, Zhou Z, Song J Z. The IL-1β、IL-4 cytokines expression in peripheral blood of post-infective intestinal dysfunction of rats. Chinese Journal of Clinical Healthcare, 2010, 13(2): 183-185. |
王巧民, 周政, 宋继中. 感染后肠功能紊乱大鼠外周血细胞因子IL-1β、IL-4表达. 中国临床保健杂志, 2010, 13(2): 183-185. | |
35 | Chen W H. Study on the effect of clinical pathology of saanen goat using different dose of Eupatorium sdenophorum as supplement diet. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2015. |
陈伟红. 饲喂不同剂量紫茎泽兰对萨能奶山羊临床病理学影响的研究. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2015. | |
36 | Song X P. Extraction and isolation of total flavonoids and isowolftoxin from chamaejasme and study on their toxicity. Xianyang: Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, 1994. |
宋晓平. 瑞香狼毒中总黄酮和异狼毒素的提取分离及其毒性的研究. 咸阳: 西北农林科技大学, 1994. |
[1] | 隋宗明, 刘海, 殷洁, 郭明全, 王勇, 袁玲. 紫茎泽兰堆肥对葡萄产量、品质和土壤性状指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(2): 88-96. |
[2] | 杨红军, 杜如万, 吴叶宽, 王剑, 王勇, 赵建, 梁永江, 张长华, 袁玲. 紫茎泽兰野外微生物堆肥及毒性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(6): 131-138. |
[3] | 王亚麒, 焦玉洁, 陈丹梅, 袁玲, 黄玥, 吴叶宽, 杜如万. 紫茎泽兰浸提液对牧草种子发芽和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(2): 150-159. |
[4] | 王翀,林慧龙,何兰,曹坳程. 紫茎泽兰潜在分布对气候变化响应的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 20-30. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||