Lactoferrin quantification in cattle faeces by ELISA
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Author and article information
Abstract
Background: Promoting and maintaining health is critical to ruminant welfare and productivity. Within human medicine, faecal lactoferrin is quantified for routine assessment of various gastrointestinal illnesses avoiding the need for blood sampling. This approach might also be adapted and applied for non-invasive health assessments in animals.
Methods: In this proof-of-concept study a bovine lactoferrin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), designed for serum and milk, was applied to a faecal supernatant to assess its potential for quantifying lactoferrin in the faeces of cattle. Faecal lactoferrin concentrations were compared to background levels to assess the viability of the technique. A comparison was then made against serum lactoferrin levels to determine if they were or were not reflective of one another.
Results: The optical densities of faecal samples were significantly greater than background readings, supporting the hypothesis that the assay was effective in quantifying faecal lactoferrin (T13, 115 = 11.99, p < 0.0005, n = 115). Lactoferrin concentrations of faecal and serum samples, taken from the same animals on the same day, were significantly different (T21 = 2.49, p = 0.022) and did not correlate (r = 0.069, p = 0.767).
Cite this as
2019. Lactoferrin quantification in cattle faeces by ELISA. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27864v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27864v1note This preprint is not peer-reviewed. You may wish to reference the subsequent peer-reviewed version of this article.
Author comment
This is a submission to PeerJ for review.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Supplement of sheep and deer samples
A supplement containing information for the sheep and deer samples (faecal and blood) that were analysed in addition to the core cattle work.
Dataset
Raw data that was collected and used within the analyses in the main manuscript.
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Andrew S. Cooke conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Kathryn Watt conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Greg F. Albery conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Eric R. Morgan conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, advice and guidance throughout.
Jennifer A. J. Dungait conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, acquisition of funding. Advice and guidance throughout.
Animal Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
All cattle blood samples were taken by a trained and qualified veterinary surgeon who was conducting routine analysis in support of animal health under the UK Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. Samples were analysed on request of the veterinary surgeon using excess samples and did not require excess blood being drawn in addition to what was required under routine practice.
Sheep blood samples were taken under the Animal Scientific Procedures Act (1986). Samples used in this study were remnant samples taken under project license no: PPL 60/4211, personal license no: PIL 60/623.
Field Study Permissions
The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
Permission for the cattle field sites was obtained by A. Cooke (Rothamsted Research) from the land owner and/or manager. No specific field permit was required.
Permission for sheep and deer samples was obtained by the University of Edinburgh from the land owner and/or manager. No specific field permit was required.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Raw data is available as a supplement to this manuscript.
The data includes all of that which was obtained and used within the study. This includes the optical densities of all analysed samples and blanks and the calculated lactoferrin concentrations from those optical densities, based on standard curves.
Funding
This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (No. BB/J014400/1). E. Morgan was supported by by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (No. BB/R010250/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
