Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between direct and indirect immunofluorescence method for determination of somatic cell count

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Chemical Papers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A sensitive indirect immunofluorescence (IF) assay for bovine neutrophil and somatic cell counting was developed. The obtained indirect IF was compared with direct IF. The direct IF method uses a single-fluorophore-conjugated antibody directed against the target of interest. The indirect IF method uses two antibodies. The primary antibody is unconjugated. The secondary antibody is directed against the primary and has fluorescent marker. Calibration curves for somatic cells (SC) in buffer model solutions were obtained by both methods, using fluorescence spectrophotometry. The measured linear range of somatic cells by the direct method was from 2 × 104 to 3 × 106 cells and by the indirect method was from 3 × 104 to 3 × 106 cells. The signal obtained by the indirect method was higher than the direct method at low concentrations of SC (from 30,000 to 100 000 cells/mL). That signal amplification probably is due to more than one fluorescent secondary antibody coupling to bound primary antibody. The same effect is observed by fluorescence microscopy. Consequently, the indirect IF method is more sensitive than the direct IF method. Conjugated primary antibodies are more expensive than their unconjugated counterparts, and secondary antibodies are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, using the same conjugated secondary antibody to detect different primary antibodies is cost-effective. Furthermore, a two-color staining microscopic procedure was proposed for simultaneous estimation of total SC count and neutrophil cell count.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alhussien M, Kaur M, Manjari P, Kimothi SP, Mohanty AK, Dang AK (2015) A comparative study on the blood and milk cell counts of healthy, subclinical and clinical mastitis Karan Fries cows. Vet World 8(5):685–689. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.685-689

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Becheva Z, Gabrovska K, Godjevargova T (2017) Immunofluorescence microscope assay of neutrophils and somatic cells in bovine milk. Food Agric Immunol 28(6):1196–1210. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540105.2017.1332012

  • Carlson G, Kaneko J (1973) Isolation of leukocytes from bovine peripheral blood. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 142(3):853–856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan LL, Smith T, Kumph KA, Kuksin D, Kessel S, Déry O, Cribbes S, Lai N, Qiu J (2016) A high-throughput AO/PI-based cell concentration and viability detection method using the Celigo image cytometry. Cytotechnology 68(5):2015–2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-016-0015-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chinnappan R, Al Attas S, Koop G, van Werven T, Kaman WE, Bikker FJ, Zourob M (2017) Development of magnetic nanoparticle based calorimetric assay for the detection of bovine mastitis in cow milk. Anal Biochem 523:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2017.02.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen G (1966) Cells in milk. Vet Bull 36:337–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon RJ (1994) Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. J Dairy Sci 77(7):2103–2112. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77153-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Dairy Federation (1971) A monograph on bovine mastitis. International Dairy Fed Bull No 60, Brussels, Belgium

  • ISO 13366-1/2008 (2011) Milk—Enumeration of somatic cells. https://www.iso.org/standard/40259.html

  • Kaşikci G, Çetin Ö, Bingöl E, Gündüz M (2012) Relations between electrical conductivity, somatic cell count, California mastitis test and some quality parameters in the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 36(1):49–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehrli ME, Shuster DE (1994) Factors affecting milk somatic cells and their role in health of the bovine mammary gland. J Dairy Sci 77:619–627. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)76992-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly AL, O’Flaherty F, Fox PF (2006) Indigenous proteolytic enzymes in milk: a brief overview of the present state of knowledge. Int Dairy J 16:563–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen J (1981) Review of the progress of Dairy Science: bovine mastitis: milk compositional changes and related diagnostic tests. J Dairy Res 48:167–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni AG, Kaliwal BB (2013) Bovine mastitis: a review. Int J Recent Sci Res 4(5):542–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall P, Bentley S, Lewis S (1975) A standardized Romanowsky stain prepared from purified dyes. J Clin Pathol 28(11):920–923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meek A, Barnum D, Newbould F (1980) Use of total and differential somatic cell counts to differentiate potentially infected from potentially non-infected quarters and cows and between herds of various levels of infection. J Food Prot 43:10–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrzad J (2002) Respiratory burst activity and viability of bovine blood and milk neutrophils during different stages of lactation and mastitis. Dissertation, Ghent University

  • Oviedo-Boyso J, Valdez-Alarcón JJ, Cajero-Juárez M, Ochoa-Zarzosa A, López-Meza JE, Bravo-Patiño A, Baizabal-Aguirre VM (2007) Innate immune response of bovine mammary gland to pathogenic bacteria responsible for mastitis. J Infect 54:399–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2006.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paape MJ, Wergin WP, Guidry AJ, Pearson RE (1979) Leukocytes—second line of defense against invading mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci 62:135–153. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(79)83215-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen K, Pedersen H (2013) Chapter 6: Detection methods. In: Taylor CR, Rudbeck L, Sjorup AH (eds) Immunohistochemical staining methods. Part I. The staining process. IHC guidebook, 6th edn. Dako, Denmark, pp 78–93

  • Pilla R, Malvisi M, Snel GG, Schwarz D, König S, Czerny CP, Piccinini R (2013) Differential cell count as an alternative method to diagnose cow mastitis. J Dairy Sci 96:1653–1660. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rivas AL, Quimby FW, Blue J, Coksaygan O (2001) Longitudinal evaluation of bovine mammary gland health status by somatic cell counting, flow cytometry, and cytology. J Vet Diagn Invest 13:399–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870101300506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruffo G (1968) The role of the cell count in the diagnosis of chronic staphylococcal mastitis. Ind Latte 4:278–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawart P, Kshar A, Byakodi R, Paranjpe A (2014) Immunofluorescence in oral mucosal diseases—a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Radiol 2(1):6–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalm O, Carrol J, Jain N (1971) Bovine mastitis, 1st edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 132–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz D, Diesterbeck US, König S, Brügemann K, Schlez K, Zschöck M, Wolter W, Czerny CP (2011a) Microscopic differential cell counts in milk for the evaluation of inflammatory reactions in clinically healthy and subclinically infected bovine mammary glands. J Dairy Res 78:448–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029911000574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz D, Diesterbeck US, König S, Brügemann K, Schlez K, Zschöck M, Wolter W, Czerny CP (2011b) Flow cytometric differential cell counts in milk for the evaluation of inflammatory reactions in clinically healthy and subclinically infected bovine mammary glands. J Dairy Sci 94:5033–5044. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharif A, Muhammad G (2008) Somatic cell count as an indicator of udder health status under modern dairy production: a review. Pak Vet J 28(4):194–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharif A, Umer M, Muhammad G (2009) Mastitis control in dairy production. J Agric Soc Sci 5:102–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma N, Gautam A, Upadhyay SR, Hussain K, Soodan JS, Gupta SK (2006) Role of antioxidants in udder health: a review. Indian J Field Vet 2(1):73–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma N, Singh N, Bhadwal M (2011) Relationship of somatic cell count and mastitis: an overview. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 24(3):429–438. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.10233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smits E, Burvenich C, Guidry AJ, Heyneman R, Massart-Leen A (1999) Diapedesis across mammary epithelium reduces phagocytotic and oxidative burst of bovine neutrophils. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 68:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-2427(99)00019-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sordillo L, Shafer-Weaver K, DeRosa D (1997) Immunobiology of the mammary gland. J Dairy Sci 80:1851–1865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The T, Feltkamp T (1970) Conjugation of fluorescein isothiocyanate to antibodies. Experiments on the conditions of conjugation. Immunology 18:865–873

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Uallah S, Ahmad T, Bilal MQ, Muhammad G, Rahman SU (2005) The effect of severity of mastitis on protein and fat contents of buffalo milk. Pak Vet J 25:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Viguier C, Arora S, Gilmartin N, Welbeck K, O’Kennedy R (2009) Mastitis detection: current trends and future perspectives. Trends Biotechnol 27(8):486–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.05.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wessely-Szponder J, Bobowiec R (2013) Elastase, myeloperoxidase, and alkaline phosphatase release and free radical generation in neutrophils isolated from blood of sows at different stages of oestrous cycle. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 57:65–68. https://doi.org/10.2478/bvip-2013-0012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac P, Zubricka S, Capla J, Zelenakova L (2016) Fluorescence microscopy methods for the determination of somatic cell count in raw cow’s milk. Vet Med 61(11):612–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biotechnology Department, University “Prof. Dr Assen Zlatarov”, Prof. Yakimov str. 1, 8010, Burgas, Bulgaria

    Zlatina R. Becheva, Katya I. Gabrovska & Tzonka Ivanova Godjevargova

Authors
  1. Zlatina R. Becheva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katya I. Gabrovska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tzonka Ivanova Godjevargova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tzonka Ivanova Godjevargova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Becheva, Z.R., Gabrovska, K.I. & Godjevargova, T.I. Comparison between direct and indirect immunofluorescence method for determination of somatic cell count. Chem. Pap. 72, 1861–1867 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-018-0445-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-018-0445-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation