Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804592›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Testing Two Somatic Cell Count Cutoff Values for Bovine Subclinical Mastitis Detection Based on Milk Microbiota and Peripheral Blood Leukocyte Transcriptome Profile.

Jinning Zhang, Wenlong Li, Yongjie Tang, Xueqin Liu, Hailiang Zhang, Yueling Zhou, Yachun Wang, Wei Xiao, Ying Yu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exosomes in Mastitis-Research Status, Opportunities, and Challenges.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jinning ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Wenlong LiKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Yongjie TangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3298-9023
Xueqin LiuKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Hailiang ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8050-2494
Yueling ZhouKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Yachun WangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3629-2802
Wei XiaoBeijing Animal Husbandry Station, Beijing 100029, China.
Ying YuKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs · CNNational Animal Husbandry Service · CN

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology 2021YFD1200903National Natural Science Foundation of China 31961143009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Somatic cell count (SCC) is an important indicator of the health state of bovine udders. However, the exact cut-off value used for differentiating the cows with healthy quarters from the cows with subclinical mastitis remains controversial. Here, we collected composite milk (milk from four udder quarters) and peripheral blood samples from individual cows in two different dairy farms and used 16S rRNA gene sequencing combined with RNA-seq to explore the differences in the milk microbial composition and transcriptome of cows with three different SCC levels (LSCC: <100,000 cells/mL, MSCC: 100,000−200,000 cells/mL, HSCC: >200,000 cells/mL). Results showed that the milk microbial profiles and gene expression profiles of samples derived from cows in the MSCC group were indeed relatively easily discriminated from those from cows in the LSCC group. Discriminative analysis also uncovered some differentially abundant microbiota at the genus level, such as Bifidobacterium and Lachnospiraceae_AC2044_group, which were more abundant in milk samples from cows with SCC below 100,000 cells/mL. As for the transcriptome profiling, 79 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were found to have the same direction of regulation in two sites, and functional analyses also showed that biological processes involved in inflammatory responses were more active in MSCC and HSCC cows. Overall, these results showed a similarity between the milk microbiota and gene expression profiles of MSCC and HSCC cows, which presented further evidence that 100,000 cells/ml is a more optimal cut-off value than 200,000 cells/mL for intramammary infection detection at the cow level.

Indexed as

dairy cowsmilk microbiotasomatic cell countsubclinical mastitistranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID35804592
PMCPMC9264859
OpenAlexW4283764481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.