Objective—To determine the prevalence of biofilm
formation under long-term cell culture conditions in
serum samples of dairy cattle, goats, cats, and dogs,
and to determine whether there is an association
between nanobacteria and biofilm formation.
Sample Population—Serum samples of clinically
normal animals (313 dairy cattle, 48 goats, 140 dogs,
and 44 cats) and animals with various medical conditions
(60 dogs and 116 cats).
Procedure—Serum was incubated under cell culture
conditions and observed for biofilm formation by use
of light microscopy, electron microscopy, and spectroscopy.
A polymerase chain reaction assay was
developed to identify 16S rRNA gene sequences of
Results—Biofilm formation developed in serum samples
of 304 of 313 (97%) cattle, 44 of 48 (92%) goats,
44 of 44 (100%) cats, and 126 of 140 (90%) dogs.
Prevalence of serum samples with positive results for
biofilm formation was not significantly different
between cats or dogs with and without medical conditions
associated with pathologic extraskeletal calcification
processes. Scanning electron microscopy and
spectroscopy of biofilm samples revealed small coccoid
particles consisting mainly of calcium and phosphate.
Polymerase chain reaction assay failed to
amplify sequences of nanobacteria.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Under longterm
cell culture conditions, biofilm made up of aggregates
of calcium and phosphate crystals does form in
serum samples of clinically normal dairy cattle, goats,
cats, and dogs. Disease, however, does not predispose
to biofilm formation in serum samples of dogs
and cats. Our findings did not support the existence
of nanobacteria in serum samples of cattle, goats,
cats, and dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2003;64:176–182)
Objective—To compare agreement between 2 pregnancy tests in dairy cattle.
Animals—976 and 507 cattle for phases 1 and 2, respectively.
Procedures—Blood samples were collected, and palpation per rectum (PPR) was performed on cattle. Blood samples for the pregnancy-specific protein B (PSPB) ELISA were sent by courier to a commercial laboratory with results returned later. Results of PPR were extracted from herd records. Statistical comparison of results was performed by use of a mixed linear model and N analysis.
Results—Of 571 cattle classified as pregnant by the PSPB ELISA in phase 1, 30 (5%) were nonpregnant by PPR. Mean ± SE adjusted optical density (OD) of cattle classified pregnant by both tests was significantly higher (0.31 ± 0.01), compared with the adjusted OD of cattle classified pregnant by the PSPB ELISA and nonpregnant by PPR (0.22 ± 0.02). Of 255 cows classified pregnant by the PSPB ELISA in phase 2, 31 (12%) were nonpregnant by PPR. Mean ± SE adjusted OD of cattle classified pregnant by both tests was significantly higher (0.26 ± 0.01), compared with the adjusted OD of cattle classified pregnant by the PSPB ELISA and nonpregnant by PPR (0.21 ± 0.01). The N value was 0.82 and 0.81 for phases 1 and 2, respectively.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Good agreement existed between the 2 tests, especially at longer intervals after insemination. Discrepant results appeared to be attributable to a nonviable fetus, embryonic loss, or fetal loss.
Objective—To compare ground reaction forces (GRFs) measured by use of a pressure-sensitive walk-way (PSW) and a force plate (FP) and evaluate weekly variation in the GRFs and static vertical forces in dogs.
Animals—34 clinically normal dogs and 5 research dogs with lameness.
Procedure—GRF data were collected from 5 lame and 14 clinically normal dogs by use of an FP and a PSW. Peak vertical force (PVF), vertical impulse (VI), and velocity measurements (determined by use of photocells and PSW data) were compared between groups. Peak vertical force, VI, stride length, ground phase time (ie, contact time), and static body weight distribution data were collected on 2 occasions, 1 week apart, in 20 different clinically normal dogs by use of a PSW; week-to-week variation in values was evaluated.
Results—Measurements of velocity derived by use of the photocells were not different from those derived by use of the PSW. For any 1 limb, values derived by use of the PSW were significantly lower than values derived with the FP. For values obtained by use of either technique, there were no differences between left and right limbs except for values of PVF measured via PSW in forelimbs. Values of PVF, VI, contact time, stride length, and static weight distribution generated by the PSW did not vary from week to week.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Values for GRFs varied between the FP and PSW. However, data derived by use of PSW were consistent and could be used to evaluate kinetic variables over time in the same dog.