Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Antimicrobial peptides and skin wash effects in healthy and atopic
By Santoro, Domenico·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2018·Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Evaluation of the secretion of antimicrobial peptides and antimicrobial effect of skin wash in atopic and healthy dogs: a preliminary study.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at skin washes from 15 healthy dogs and 15 dogs with mild skin allergies (atopy) to see how well they could fight off bacteria. The researchers found that while the levels of certain antimicrobial peptides (natural substances that help fight infections) were similar in both groups, the skin washes from the atopic dogs were less effective at killing bacteria. This suggests that dogs with skin allergies may have a harder time fighting off infections. If your dog has skin issues, it might be worth discussing treatment options with your vet to help improve their skin health and reduce the risk of infections.
People also search for: dog skin allergies treatment · why is my dog scratching · atopic dermatitis in dogs · dog skin infection remedies
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are an important component of cutaneous innate immunity. The amount of AMPs secreted in healthy and atopic patients is controversial. HYPOTHESES/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the antimicrobial effect of skin wash harvested from healthy and atopic dogs, the amount of AMPs (cBD3-like/cBD122, cCath, S100A8/9/12) present in the skin washes, and the correlation between AMP levels and severity of the clinical signs. ANIMALS: Fifteen healthy and 15 mildly atopic, privately owned dogs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Skin washes were performed on a 15 cmarea of nonlesional abdominal skin. The area was rinsed with 2.7 mL of saline using a sterile tube. Commercially available (S100A8/9/12) or in-house (cBD3-like and cCath) canine-specific ELISAs were performed. Skin washes were incubated with different concentrations (5 × 10to 4 × 10cfu/mL) of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and the bacterial density measured after 24 h of incubation. Severity of clinical signs was assessed by the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index, 4version (CADESI-04). Data were analysed statistically and significance level was set as P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any of the tested AMPs between healthy and atopic dogs. Strong/moderate positive correlations were seen between total and inguinal CADESI-04 (r = 0.69; P = 0.0061) and between AMPs [cBD3-like/cCath (r = 0.69; P = 0.011), S100A8/S100A9 (r = 0.8; P = 0.0016) and S100A9/S100A12 (r = 0.57; P = 0.047)]. Significantly less antimicrobial activity was seen in skin washes from atopic versus healthy dogs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: This study found no difference in AMP secretion levels between healthy and nonlesional atopic canine skin. However, a significantly lower antimicrobial activity was present in the skin washes from atopic compared to healthy skin.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29963726/