Open AccessПОКАЗНИКИ АНТИЛІЗОЦИМНОЇ ТА АНТИКОМПЛЕМЕНТАРНОЇ АКТИВНОСТІ МІКРООРГАНІЗМІВ ДИСТАЛЬНОГО ВІДДІЛУ КИШЕЧНИКА ПОРОСЯТ ЗА ЗМІШАНОЇ НЕМАТОДОЗНО-ПРОТОЗООЗНОЇ ІНВАЗІЇ
Author(s) -
R. A. Peleno
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
naukovij vìsnik lʹvìvsʹkogo nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu veterinarnoï medicini ta bìotehnologìj ìmenì s.z. g̀žicʹkogo
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2518-1327
pISSN - 2413-5550
DOI - 10.15421/nvlvet7156
Subject(s) - microbiology and biotechnology , fusobacterium , eubacterium , peptostreptococcus , biology , lactobacillus , bacteroides , enterococcus , bifidobacterium , bacteria , antibiotics , genetics
The article deals with the results of search of the influence of intestinal parasites on the indicators of antilysozyme and anticomplementary activity of microorganism of distal department of intestine. It was established, that the products of intestinal parasites of pigs reduce anti lysozyme activity of such obligate anaerobes as Bifidobacterium spp. to 42.1% (р < 0.01), Prevotella spp. to 14.3%, Clostridium spр. to 66.7% (р < 0,001). With MAFAnM to 38.5% (р < 0.05) in Lactobacillus spp. and to 50.0% (р < 0.01) in Streptococcus spp. Higher compared with the control, antilysozyme activity was in Bacteroides spp. (р < 0.05), Eubacterium spp. (р < 0,001), Propionіbacterium spp. (р < 0.01), Peptostreptococcus spp. (р < 0.05), Fusobacterium spp. (р < 0.01), E. coli lact. «+» hem «-» (р < 0.05), Klebsiella spp. (р < 0.001), Citrobacter spp. (р < 0.01), Enterococcus spp. (р < 0.05), Staphylococcus spp. (р<0.001), Candida spp. (р<0.001) abstracted from the distal intestine of pigs affected with mixed nematodosis - protoozic invasion. With the action of products of vital functions of ascarices, eymeria and balantides, the anticomplementary activity significantly increases in Prevotella spp. (р < 0.01), Clostridium spр. (р < 0.001), Eubacterium spp. (р < 0.001), Propionіbacterium spp. (р < 0.001), Peptostreptococcus spp. (р < 0,001), Fusobacterium spp. (р < 0.001), Lactobacillus spp. (р < 0.05), E. coli lact. «+» hem «-» (р < 0.01), E. coli lact. «-» hem «+» (р < 0.001), Klebsiella spp. (р < 0.05), Enterobacter spp. (р < 0.001), Enterococcus spp. (р < 0.001), Streptococcus spp. (р < 0.001) and only in Bacteroides spp. it was significantly lower (р < 0.001), compared with the control.