- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
Effect of uses of Probiotic as immunostimulator in lambs vaccinated with Brucella melitensis Rev-1 vaccine | ||
| Al-Anbar Journal of Veterinary Sciences | ||
| Article 1, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 101-110 PDF (236.43 K) | ||
| Authors | ||
| A. J. A. Al- Umary; A. A. Yousif | ||
| Abstract | ||
| This study was conducted to investigate the effect of probiotic used as immunostimulator to improve the humeral and cellular immune response in lambs vaccinated with the Rev-1 vaccine. The experimental study included 15 lambs (age 5-8 months) were equally divided into two groups and treated as following. Clinical and immunological tests were conducted to all lambs at 0 time and after 2,6,10,14 weeks. the results of clinical tests revealed that there is increase in body temperature, respiratory and pulse rates of vaccinated animals only but the second group show the highest parameters. The control did not show any change. The vaccined lambs shows humeral immune response by giving a positive results to rose Bengal test & by using Passive haemagglutination test, the first group revealed high significant antibody titer (524.80±151.911) than the second group (p<0.05 ). and the results of cellular immune response, as detected by delayed type hypersensitivity test which give a positive results in vaccinated groups but the first group was significantly higher (p<0.05 )at than rates in redness area and thickness compared with the second group E. rosette test showed significant increase at (p<0.05) of activated lymphocyte in first group (46.508±4.028) compared with second (41.22±3.6865). Serum total protein concentration was increased in first group (8.9108±0.2177) compared with second group and control group. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 64 PDF Download: 32 |
||