2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2013.04.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Four lysozymes (one c-type and three g-type) in catfish are drastically but differentially induced after bacterial infection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These include three lysozymes [17], Lysozyme G-Like 1 (Lyg1, JT 285197), Lysozyme C (Lyc, ADO29030) and Lysozyme G (Lyg, ADO29070); two lectins, Galectin (LEG) [19,21] and Mannosebinding lectin (MBL, FD345689.1) [25]; two pathogen recognition receptors, Peptidoglycan recognition protein 5 (PGLYRP-5, GBAT00000000) and Peptidoglycan recognition protein 6 (PGLYRP-6, JT406836) [26]; an Interleukin 17A (IL17A) [27]; an inducible nitric oxide synthase 2b1, inducible (NOS2b1, KF704363) [28]; an antimicrobial peptide Cathepsin D (CTSD, CBCZ2535) [29]. In our previous studies, they were all significantly differentially expressed in mucosal surfaces (skin, gill and intestine) following bacterial challenge, including F. columnare, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Edwardsiella ictaluri.…”
Section: Real-time Pcr Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These include three lysozymes [17], Lysozyme G-Like 1 (Lyg1, JT 285197), Lysozyme C (Lyc, ADO29030) and Lysozyme G (Lyg, ADO29070); two lectins, Galectin (LEG) [19,21] and Mannosebinding lectin (MBL, FD345689.1) [25]; two pathogen recognition receptors, Peptidoglycan recognition protein 5 (PGLYRP-5, GBAT00000000) and Peptidoglycan recognition protein 6 (PGLYRP-6, JT406836) [26]; an Interleukin 17A (IL17A) [27]; an inducible nitric oxide synthase 2b1, inducible (NOS2b1, KF704363) [28]; an antimicrobial peptide Cathepsin D (CTSD, CBCZ2535) [29]. In our previous studies, they were all significantly differentially expressed in mucosal surfaces (skin, gill and intestine) following bacterial challenge, including F. columnare, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Edwardsiella ictaluri.…”
Section: Real-time Pcr Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In zebrafish, Yazawa et al obtained 65% survival rate against F. columnare in Lyc overexpressed strain, compared to 0% survival in wild-type fish, indicating the importance of lysozyme in fish mucosal immunity [40]. In catfish, both the Lyc and Lyg were drastically induced after E. ictaluri challenge in liver, spleen and kidney [17]. In mucosal surfaces, the lysozyme displayed consistently higher expression in resistant catfish gill than that observed in susceptible fish [20].…”
Section: Real-time Pcr Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, under nonstimulated condition, the enzyme activity in the skin is the reverse condition of the expression pattern of lysozyme transcripts in the present species. As evidenced by several fish species, teleosts showed a lower expression level in the skin [38,42,55]. In particular, a positive correlation between transcriptional level and enzyme activity was detected in skin of Atlantic salmon.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…In particular, a positive correlation between transcriptional level and enzyme activity was detected in skin of Atlantic salmon. Therefore, the obvious discrepancies might be caused by the existence of a sub-isoform of c-type and g-type lysozymes, such as in channel catfish [55], or differential distribution of mucous cells in the skin [56]. Further studies should include comparisons of lysozyme activity and transcriptional levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E-value was set equal to 1e −5 to ensure the quality of the results. The transcriptome database was generated by RNA-Seq assembly of a doubled haploid channel catfish , which has been used as the main resource for the identification of full-length gene transcripts in various catfish gene family studies (Rajendran et al, 2012a(Rajendran et al, , 2012bLiu et al, 2013a;Wang et al, 2013aWang et al, , 2014Zhang et al, 2013;Sun et al, 2014). Duplicates in the initial sequence pool were eliminated by using ClustalW2 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) and a unique set of sequences was subject to further analysis.…”
Section: Gene Identification and Sequence Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%