Next Article in Journal
Pathogenesis of Osteoarthritis: Risk Factors, Regulatory Pathways in Chondrocytes, and Experimental Models
Previous Article in Journal
The Antiviral Properties of Cyclosporine. Focus on Coronavirus, Hepatitis C Virus, Influenza Virus, and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infections
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Utility of Genomic and Transcriptomic Data in the Construction of Proxy Protein Sequence Databases for Unsequenced Tree Nuts
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Novel Biomarkers of Mastitis in Goat Milk Revealed by MALDI-TOF-MS-Based Peptide Profiling

1
Institute for the Animal Production System in the Mediterranean Environment (ISPAAM), National Research Council (CNR), 80147 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, National Research Centre, Giza 12622, Egypt
3
Department of Veterinary Research, Guangdong Haid Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary (GHIAHV), Guangzhou 511400, China
4
Animal Reproduction Research Institute (ARRI), Agriculture Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Giza 12556, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2020, 9(8), 193; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080193
Submission received: 22 June 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 22 July 2020 / Published: 28 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Foodomics: Food Authentication, Processing and Nutrition)

Abstract

:
Mastitis is the most common infection of dairy goats impairing milk production and quality, which is usually recognized by mammary gland visual inspection and palpation. Subclinical forms of the disease are also widely represented, which lack the typical signs of the clinical ones but are still associated with reduced production and safety for human consumption of milk, generally presenting a high bacterial count. In order to obtain novel analytical tools for rapid and non-invasive diagnosis of mastitis in goats, we analyzed milk samples from healthy, subclinical and clinical mastitic animals with a MALDI-TOF-MS-based peptidomic platform, generating disease group-specific spectral profiles whose signal intensity and mass values were analyzed by statistics. Peculiar spectral signatures of mastitis with respect to the control were identified, while no significant spectral differences were observed between clinical and subclinical milk samples. Discriminant signals were assigned to specific peptides through nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap-MS/MS experiments. Some of these molecules were predicted to have an antimicrobial activity based on their strong similarity with homolog bioactive compounds from other mammals. Through the definition of a panel of peptide biomarkers, this study provides a very rapid and low-cost method to routinely detect mastitic milk samples even though no evident clinical signs in the mammary gland are observed.

1. Introduction

Goats were the earliest domesticated animal in the world, and large consumption of the corresponding meat and dairy products has characterized human habits overtime. Recently, the demand for goat milk and dairy products has increased in developing countries, because of their suitable physicochemical characteristics and beneficial effects on human health [1]. As a matter of the fact, goat milk was reported having reduced allergenicity and higher digestibility than the cow counterpart, and goat dairy products have been classified as functional foods based on their nutritional/dietetic properties [1,2,3]. In fact, goat milk was demonstrated to have an augmented representation of whey proteins and essential amino acids [4], increased levels of mono/poly-unsaturated fatty acids and medium-chain triglycerides [5], and a reduced content of lactose [2].
Taking into account the increased consumer demand, many efforts have recently been devoted to increase the amount of goat milk production worldwide, and to improve the quality of corresponding dairy products [6]. For example, animal dietary modifications have been introduced for increasing the functional properties of goat milk [7,8,9]. Moreover, particular care has been spent in preventing and managing the outcomes of animal mastitis, which represents the primary and most costly infection of dairy goats. In fact, mastitis determines a strong decrease in milk production and quality [10,11], reduces weight gain in lambs, and is the cause of culling for sanitary reasons [12]. Clinical mastitis is an inflammatory condition of the mammary gland that is caused by different microorganisms, mostly bacteria, but also by organ injury; generally, it is recognized during veterinary examination by visual inspection and palpation. Subclinical mastitis (SCM) forms also exist, which are due to coagulase-negative Staphylococci, and are about six-fold more common than the clinical ones [13]. They lack the typical above-mentioned mammary signs of the clinical form, but are still associated with a reduced production of milk, which also presents a high bacterial count and a reduced antioxidant content [14]. Accordingly, SCM forms are more difficult to be identified.
In cows, SCM has been associated with high somatic cell count (SCC) values in milk; the diagnostic value of this parameter is underlined by the importance EU directives gave in establishing precise legal limits of it [15]. Conversely, the SCC value in goat milk does not correlate with clinical and subclinical forms of mastitis [16,17,18]. As a matter of fact, goat milk naturally contains higher levels of somatic cells than cow milk; this is because milk secretion in goats is apocrine [19,20]. Indeed, cytoplasmic particles from the apical portion of secretory cells are physiologically shed in milk. As these particles are similar in size to milk somatic cells, they can be mistakenly counted as the latter [21,22]. Further, the SCC value is influenced by the animal lactation stage and lactation number. Indeed, SCC increases physiologically when the lactation stage progresses, and is higher in goats of higher parity. Thus, mastitis diagnosis in goat is made by evaluation of mammary clinical signs and/or bacteriological tests.
In the above-mentioned context, clinical observation, California mastitis test and white side test were the main field diagnostic tools used for mammary inflammation detection in bovine and goat, whereas culture and isolation were laboratory-based methods [23,24,25]. However, the outcome and interpretation of these diagnostic tests were neither reliable nor specific or confirmatory [26,27]. Recently, molecular diagnostics [28] including PCR [29], qRT-PCR [30], loop-mediated isothermal amplification [31,32], nucleotide sequencing [33] and lateral flow assays [34] were used for overcoming above-mentioned shortcomings and for specific diagnosis of mastitis in bovine and goat. However, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity remain the main concern for all such tests [25,35].
On the other hand, proteomics has been successfully used for the differentiation of healthy and mastitic bovine [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46], ovine [47,48,49] and caprine [50,51] milk, describing the metabolic and defense response of the mammary gland to various pathogens/pathogen-related lipopolysaccharides. Depending on the case, proteomic analysis was performed either on milk fat globule and/or whey fraction, and allowed monitoring the pathophysiological status of the mammary gland, highlighting protein biomarkers to be used for the development of novel diagnostic assays. In some cases, protein expression differences between healthy individuals and those affected by clinical and subclinical mastitic forms were evidenced [43,46,47,48,51].
Differential analysis of the peptide content of biological fluids has been used to discover biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of diseases; generally, these studies highlighted the higher diagnostic character of a panel of analytes, more than a single compound. Concomitant changes in the peptide profile were indicative of a trend toward or away from the disease state. In this context, different peptidomic studies on bovine milk were accomplished to discriminate healthy, subclinical and clinical mastitic individuals, proposing putative biomarker panels [40,45,52,53,54]. Based on their discovery character, these investigations were generally performed through a combination of chromatographic and MS procedures, often limiting the number of investigated samples.
Due to the need of novel analytical tools for a non-invasive and reliable diagnosis of mastitis in goat, and the lack of information on putative peptide biomarkers in this context, we analyzed milk samples from healthy, subclinical and clinical mastitic animals using a Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionisation-Time of Fligh-Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS)-based peptidomic platform optimized to this purpose. We took advantage of our previous experience in a large screening of milk samples for speciation and adulteration detection purposes [55,56,57], generating disease group-specific milk spectral profiles. Statistical analysis of the latter ones allowed the identification of discriminant signals, based on their intensity and mass values. The latter were assigned to specific peptides through further nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS experiments, which identified biomarker candidates of mastitis in goats.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Preparation

A total of 72 milk samples were collected from 48 dairy goats of the Damascus (n = 24), and Anglo-Nubian (n = 24) breed located in Giza and Alexandria governorates, Egypt. All goats were in mid- to late-lactation at sampling. Animals were initially subjected to clinical and udder examination for the detection of abnormalities, which were suggestive for clinical mastitis [58]. Before sample collection, teats were disinfected with iodine pre-milking solution, dried with disposable paper towels, and wiped with cotton balls moist with 70% v/v ethanol. After the withdrawal of the first 3 to 4 squirts on the floor, a 10 mL milk sample was collected in a sterile tube from each udder half. Milk samples were kept at 4 °C and transferred immediately to the laboratory for the assessment of corresponding SCC values. Bacteriological examination was done within 24 h. Aliquots of samples were stored at −20 °C for further peptidomic analysis.
Animals were managed according to the local farm-production practices. All examinations were carried out kindly, and always by the same veterinarian, for avoiding animal suffering and stress.

2.2. Somatic Cell Count

SCC value in milk samples was determined with a NucleoCounter® SCC-100™ instrument (ChemoMetec, Allerod, Denmark), which is based on ChemoMetec’s proven technology of Fluorescence image cytometry, using a single-use SCC-Cassette™ sampling and measuring device.

2.3. Bacteriological Examination

Milk samples were hand-mixed and opened in a biosafety level II cabinet. Bacteriological examination of milk samples was performed as recommended previously [59,60]. Briefly, 10 μL of milk were streaked by the quadrant streaking method over Blood Agar Base (bioMérieux, Warsaw, Poland), Mac Conkey Agar (BTL, Warsaw, Poland), Mannitol salt agar (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK), and Edwards Medium (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK) plates. Plates were incubated at 37 °C, and then read after 24 and 48 h. The bacteria were tentatively identified according to their cultural and morphological appearance, and Gram’s reaction [61]. Detailed identification of isolated bacteria was performed using standard biochemical tests and API tests (bioMérieux, Warsaw, Poland) [62,63].

2.4. Milk Amyloid A Titration

Milk amyloid A concentration was assessed by sandwich ELISA using a commercial kit (Tridelta Development Ltd., Wicklow, Leinster, Ireland), essentially according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were diluted 1:50 v/v for the assay and analyzed in duplicate. The program GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) was used to perform two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

2.5. MALDI-TOF-MS-Based Peptide Profiling

To obtain goat skimmed milk, initial milk samples were defatted by centrifugation at 4000× g, for 30 min, at 4 °C. Aliquots of the corresponding skimmed material (800 μL) were treated by adding 4 vol of cold acetone (−20 °C), and centrifuged at 4000× g, for 30 min, at 4 °C, to precipitate proteins and obtain solutions containing peptides [57]. Supernatants were vacuum dried and then solved in 0.1% TFA. For each sample, an aliquot (20 µL) was desalted and concentrated on a μC18 ZipTip (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) device, which was then eluted with 3 µL of 50% v/v acetonitrile, containing 0.1% v/v TFA. Samples were then added with 3 µL of matrix solution (25 mg/mL of α-ciano-4 hydroxycinnamic acid in 50% v/v acetonitrile, containing 0.1% TFA), spotted in quintuplicate (1 µL per spot) on an MSP 384 target ground steel plate (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) and allowed to dry, at room temperature [56]. Spectral profiles were acquired by MALDI-TOF-MS using an UltraflexExtreme mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) equipped with the FlexControl software package (v 3.4, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) [55]. Spectra were recorded in the positive linear mode (laser frequency, 1000 Hz; ion source 1 voltage, 25.2 kV; ion source 2 voltage, 22.5 kV; lens voltage, 8.50 kV; sample rate, 0.63; mass range, m/z 500–7000). Five independent spectra (1000 shots at random positions on the same target place, for spectrum) were automatically collected, externally calibrated by using the Peptide Calibration Standard 2 and Protein Calibration Standard 1 kit (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany), and subsequently analyzed. The above-mentioned instrument settings were maintained during the whole analysis of all milk samples with the aim of not compromising the recognition capability of the peptidomic platform.
FlexAnalysis (v 3.4) and ClinProt Tools (v 2.2) software packages (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) were used for the analysis of all MALDI-TOF-MS data, which included spectral mass adjustment, optional smoothing (using the Savitsky-Golay algorithm with width 15 e cycles 2), spectral baseline subtraction, normalization, internal peak alignment, and peak picking. Pretreated data were then subjected to visualization and statistical analysis. Peaks showing a statistically significant difference in signal intensity or mass value were determined by means of Wilcoxon (PWKW), Anderson–Darling (PAD,) and t (PTTA) tests. A class prediction model was set up by Genetic Alghorithms (GA). Discriminant peaks were considered those presenting at least PAD p-value < 0.000001 a signal area/intensity fold change ratio ≥1.5 and ≤0.67. Finally, a principal component analysis (PCA) of the spectra was performed, which was carried out by an external MATLAB software tool integrated into ClinProt Tools software.

2.6. NanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS Analysis

Aliquots of each sample were subjected to desalting/concentration step on C18 ZipTip microcolumn (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) using 50% v/v acetonitrile, containing 5% v/v formic acid as eluent. Peptide mixtures were analyzed with an UltiMate 3000 HPLC RSLC nano system-Dionex coupled to a Q-ExactivePlus mass spectrometer through a Nanoflex ion source (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Peptides were loaded on an Acclaim PepMapTM RSLC C18 column (150 mm × 75 μm ID, 2 μm particles, 100 Å pore size) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and eluted with a gradient of solvent B (19.9/80/0.1 v/v/v water/acetonitrile/formic acid) in solvent A (99.9/0.1 v/v water/formic acid), at a flow rate of 300 nL/min. The gradient of solvent B started at 3%, increased to 40% over 40 min, raised to 80% over 5 min, remained at 80% for 4 min, and finally returned to 3% in 1 min, with a column equilibrating step of 30 min before the subsequent chromatographic run. The mass spectrometer operated in data-dependent mode, using a full scan (m/z range 375–1500), nominal resolution of 70,000 automatic gain control target of 3,000,000, a maximum ion target of 50 ms, followed by MS/MS scans of the 10 most abundant ions. MS/MS spectra were acquired using a normalized collision energy of 32%, an automatic gain control target of 100,000, a maximum ion target of 100 ms, and a resolution of 17,500. A dynamic exclusion value of 30 s was also used. Two technical replicates were analyzed for each sample.

2.7. Database Search for Protein Identification

All MS and MS/MS raw data files per sample were merged for protein identification into Proteome Discoverer v 2.1 software (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), enabling the database search by Mascot algorithm v 2.4.2 (Matrix Science, London, UK). The following criteria were used: UniProtKB protein database (Capra hircus as taxonomy) including the most common protein contaminants, and oxidation of Methionine and pyroglutamate formation at N-terminal Glutamine as variable modifications. Peptide mass tolerance was set to ±10 ppm and fragment mass tolerance to ±0.05 Da. No proteolytic enzyme was set. Peptide candidates assigned based on a Mascot score ≥30 were considered confidently identified. Results were filtered to 1% false discovery rate.

2.8. Bioinformatics for Function Prediction

Identified peptides/proteins were in silico analyzed for their sequence with free available predictor software. The latter are based on SVM models that provide a prediction of molecular activity based on corresponding amino acid composition, sequence, peptide motifs, binary profile features, and physiochemical property information. Used web-based predictor software were the following: (i) Antinflam (http://metagenomics.iiserb.ac.in/antiinflam/pred.php) that recognizes anti-inflammatory peptides; (ii) CAMPR3 (http://www.camp3.bicnirrh.res.in) and Antimicrobial Peptide Scanner vr2 (https://www.dveltri.com/ascan/v2/ascan.html) that recognize antimicrobial peptides; (iii) dPABBs (http://ab-openlab.csir.res.in/abp/antibiofilm) that recognizes potential antibiofilm peptides; and (iv) AVPpred (http://crdd.osdd.net/servers/avppred/index.html) that recognizes potential antiviral peptides. The SVM model score threshold was set to 1 for prediction of anti-inflammatory molecules, and to 0.5 for antimicrobial and antibiofilm components; this value was set to 45 only in the case of antiviral peptides.
Peptide secondary structure prediction and helical wheel representation were obtained with PSIPRED 4.0 and MEMSAT-SVM software (http://bioinf.cs.ucl.ac.uk/psipred) and NetWheels software (http://lbqp.unb.br/NetWheels), respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Milk Group Classification

Clinical examination of the udder of 48 dairy goats revealed symptoms of clinical mastitis in 27 animals (43.7%), while 21 animals (56.3%) were clinically healthy and showed normal milk secretion (Figure 1A). Bacteriological examination performed on 72 milk samples revealed single/multiple positivities in 66 samples (91.7%), while 6 samples (8.3%) did not show any microbial growth (Figure 1B). Milk samples were then grouped according to results from the veterinary and bacteriological analysis. Therefore, 6 milk samples were assigned to the group of healthy animals showing negative bacteriological examination (8.3%), 39 samples were assigned to the group of healthy animals showing at least one positive bacteriological examination (54.2%), and 27 samples were assigned to the group of animals with clinical mastitis (37.5%) (Figure 1C).
Although somatic cells are normally present in goat mammary secretions, their value increases significantly as a consequence of intramammary infection. Therefore, SCC evaluation was also carried out as a further index of the udder health status [64] and of the hygienic quality of milk [65]. It is worth mentioning that the legislation of international dairy food has fixed a specific value of SCC in bovine milk to distinguish healthy samples from unhealthy ones [66]. We already mentioned that the SCC value in goat milk is influenced by several factors, such as breed, stage of lactation [23], type of birth, estrus [67], diurnal, monthly, and seasonal variations [68]. Indeed, the relationship between SCC and mastitis infection has not been established and, accordingly, defined by a dedicated law. As an international and unambiguous legislative limit for goat milk is not available yet and various SCC values have been reported in the literature [69,70,71], we chose to classify sample groups also based on corresponding SCC values. Accordingly, we classified as healthy (control) samples as those from animals not showing clinical signs and negative bacteriological tests; they all had an SCC value < 500 × 103 cells/mL [72,73,74,75] (Figure 1D). Milk samples from animals not showing clinical signs but having at least a positive value of bacteriological examination, and variable SCC values were classified as subclinical, because co-association of a positive bacteriological investigation was correlated to the presence of an ongoing infection that was not manifested yet (Figure 1D). Finally, milk samples from animals having clinical signs and positive values of bacteriological examination, and variable SCC values were classified as clinical (Figure 1D). Subclinical and clinical groups were then divided into subgroups based on SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL, within the range 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL, and >1500 × 103 cells/mL, to yield final sample grouping reported below and in Figure 1D.
  • Healthy—no clinical signs, negative bacteriological tests and SCC < 500 × 103 cells/mL (control, n = 6, 8.3% of total);
  • Subclinical mastitis—no clinical signs, positive bacteriological tests (low SCC, SCC < 500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 13, 18.1% of total; medium SCC, SCC = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 11, 15.3% of total; high SCC, SCC > 1500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 15, 20.8% of total);
  • Clinical mastitis—evident clinical signs and positive bacteriological tests (low SCC, SCC < 500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 4, 5.5% of total; medium SCC, SCC = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 3, 4.2% of total; high SCC, SCC > 1500 × 103 cells/mL, n = 20, 27.8% of total).
The seven groups were then prepared for further peptidomic analysis based on MALDI-TOF-MS experiments.

3.2. MALDI-TOF-MS Peptide Profiling

In order to identify peptide markers associated with above-mentioned subclinical and clinical classification, also considering SCC sub-classification, milk samples from healthy and affected animals were skimmed, removed for proteins and analyzed in linear mode by MALDI-TOF-MS [55,56,57]; this allowed a rapid detection of the corresponding spectral profile signatures. To ensure optimal MALDI-TOF-MS reproducibility and sample discrimination accuracy, skimmed milk samples were loaded in quintupled on a steel target instrument plate and analyzed in technical quintuplicate. As an example, mass spectra obtained for a control (A) and a clinical with SCC > 1500 × 103 cells/mL (B) milk sample are reported in Figure S1. The acquired mass spectra were normalized by importing raw data to dedicated software (ClinProt, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany), and any signal-to-noise ratio intensity beyond 5:1 was considered as a peak. Representative average mass spectra for each sample group are shown in Figure 2.
Statistical analysis of all MALDI-TOF mass spectra was then performed; based on signal intensity, 47 peaks were identified as showing significant differences among different sample groups (PAD, p < 0.000001). The above-mentioned peaks were then analyzed for signal intensity changes; the ones displaying a significant higher (fold change ≥1.5) or lower intensity (fold change ≤0.67) with respect to the control group were finally selected. A total of 45 peaks (ranging from m/z 1153.17 to 6279.61) emerged in subclinical and clinical samples as showing significant intensity changes (Table 1). In particular, 14 average signals (m/z 1153.17, 1307.03, 1703.72, 1720.73, 1837.78, 2181.62, 2195.89, 4162.48, 4264.35, 5017.09, 5107.34, 5192.21, 5914.71 and 6001.46) showed common increasing (9 in number) or decreasing (5 in number) intensity trends in all clinical and subclinical forms, with respect to the control. All of them did not depend on the ascertained SCC value; thus, may represent good molecular biomarker candidates for future dedicated studies.
For example, Figure 3 illustrates two of the significant average signals displaying a decreasing trend in all subclinical and clinical groups, compared to control.
On the other hand, 18 average signals (m/z 1491.76, 1602.67, 1621.69, 1784.82, 1853.38, 2000.24, 2295.14, 2928.88, 3270.31, 3293.95, 3407.20, 3849.31, 4054.94, 4810.20, 4922.04, 5353.01, 5828.20 and 6279.61) showed common and coherent increasing (7 in number) or decreasing (11 in number) intensity trends in both clinical and subclinical forms having the same SCC cataloging, with respect to control (Table 1); among those, 8 showed a common and coherent increasing (2 in number) or decreasing (6 in number) intensity changes in samples having at the same SCC = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL and >1500 × 103 cells/mL. More importantly, no average signals showing common quantitative trends among all SCC subgroups allowed discrimination between clinical and subclinical forms (Table 1). As expected, PCA of all the data was in line with the recognition capability values highlighted above and in Table 1 (data not shown); a good separation of the data was evident only in the case of healthy samples. Due to a higher number of signals in the mass spectra, our results were suggestive of increased activity of proteases in both subclinical and clinical milk samples, with respect to the healthy ones. These findings were in good agreement with previous dedicated studies on various milk samples from different mammals [76,77], which also detected an increased representation in mastitic material of hydrolytic enzymes from bacteria and cells involved in inflammatory processes [78,79].
Average signals related to MALDI-TOF-MS intensity changes between various groups were further investigated for corresponding molecular species. In particular, nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS analysis of milk samples and database search of resulting data were used for peptide assignment; results are reported in Table 2. Based on their number, MALDI-TOF-MS varying average signals were, in order, associated with fragments from β-casein, serum amyloid A3, αs1- and αs2-casein, respectively. In particular, MALDI-TOF-MS average signal intensity changes suggested a significant production in subclinical and clinical mastitic goat milk of peptide fragments resulting from proteolysis of β-casein, as already observed in the bovine counterpart disease models [40,45,52,53]. In general, their nature well paralleled the one reported in above-mentioned studies, with small and large peptides originating from protein C-terminus, i.e., (197–207), (195–206), (193–206), (192–206), (192–207), (190–205), (191–207), (188–207) and (163–206), (162–206), (160–205)/(161–206), (161–207), (154–206), (154–207), showing an augmented representation. In particular, identical or very similar homologs of peptides (197–207), (193–206), (192–206), (192–207), (190–205), (191–207) and (188–207) were already identified by more accurate quantitative methods as a biomarker of disease in subclinical [53] and clinical [40,45,52] bovine mastitis. Some of these peptides were previously characterized for their antimicrobial properties against Gram-negative bacteria [80] or immunomodulatory action toward macrophages from germ-free or from human flora-associated mice [81]. As it concerns peptides (163–206), (162–206), (160–205)/(161–206), (161–207), (154–206) and (154–207), C-terminal truncated bovine homologs have already been identified with increased quantitative levels in clinical mastitis [40,45]. Finally, the decreased levels of peptides (182–207), (177–205), (177–206), (178–207), (177–207), (171–206), (170–206) and (170–207) measured in subclinical and clinical mastitic goat milk were suggestive of an increased protease activity favoring their degradation toward above-mentioned shorter molecular form.
On the other hand, MALDI-TOF-MS-based peptide profiling experiments indicated that all fragments from serum amyloid A3, i.e., (19–35) and (19–37), were down-represented in subclinical and clinical mastitis goat milk samples, notwithstanding their SCC value, thus suggesting reduced proteolysis of this protein after disease outcome. Variably represented fragments originating from proteolysis of serum amyloid A have already been reported in bovine milk from an experimental model of Streptococcus uberis mastitis [45], but none of the previously ascertained molecules matched the ones described here for infected goat milk. This may be due to the different experimental approach authors used for quantitative peptidomic analysis (MALDI-TOF-MS vs nanoLC-ESI-MS/MS) but also to subtle sequence differences present between bovine and goat serum amyloid A3. This protein is one of the major acute-phase effectors in ruminants [82,83].
Conversely, our profile measurements on as1-casein-derived peptides (21–32), (16–47) and (16–48) in clinical mastitic goat milk found a good parallel with quantitative data through more accurate methods on bovine milk counterparts [40,45,53], which proved the concomitant over-representation the smaller molecular homologs and down-representation of the larger parental compound species. In this case, some bovine peptide counterparts were proved to have antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and yeasts [84]. Finally, the decreased representation of αs2-casein-derived peptides (199–208) and (190–208) in mastitic goat samples was in good agreement with quantitative results from bovine disease models [45], and was suggestive on an increased degradation of this protein in diseased animals.

3.3. Determination of Milk Amyloid A

The acute phase reaction is an element of nonspecific resistance; it is associated with the increase of specific proteins that are recognized as a marker of inflammation in mammals. Milk amyloid A (MAA) is considered a reliable and sensitive marker of mastitis [85] because its concentration significantly increases following mammary glands infection in ewe [49,86] and cows [38,39,43,87,88], as a result of protein leakage from the blood to the milk and as mammary glands epithelial cell-response to infection [89,90]. Therefore, MAA concentration was measured in goat milk samples from subclinical and clinical groups with the aim to evaluate the occurrence of this phenomenon also in goats, and to ascertain whether corresponding protein levels correlated with the abundance of the identified peptides. Protein levels of control samples were similar to those of subclinical and clinical ones having similar SCC values.
As expected, subclinical mastitis samples with SCC > 1500 × 103 cells/mL showed MAA concentration values significantly higher than that of both subclinical with SCC = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL (p < 0.01) and subclinical with SCC < 500 × 103 cells/mL counterparts (p < 0.001) (Figure 4), with corresponding protein titer paralleling SCC value. Similarly, clinical mastitis samples with SCC > 1500 × 103 cells/mL or SCC = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL showed MAA levels higher than samples with SCC < 500 × 103 cells/mL (p < 0.05). Again, protein concentration values paralleled SCC ones. Moreover, no great differences between subclinical and clinical samples with the same SCC count were observed (Figure 4).
Interestingly, the amount of MAA measured in mastitic milk samples having different SCC values was found to be negatively associated, although not significantly, with corresponding levels of MAA peptides ascertained by MALDI-TOF-MS analysis, thus suggesting the hampering of degradation phenomena affecting this protein in order to maintain its augmented molecular levels during infection.

3.4. Prediction of Proteases Generating Milk Peptides Ascertained in Mastitis

Deregulated peptides here identified by combined peptidomic experiments were further subjected to bioinformatic analysis to identify proteases involved in the corresponding molecular release. This analysis was based on the evaluation of amino acids occurring at peptide N-terminal/C-terminal regions as well as on known specificity of proteolytic enzymes (Table S1). As shown in Figure 5, cathepsin D, elastase, trypsin-like, plasmin and chymotrypsin were predicted as the ones highly involved in the release of peptide fragments. Indeed, various proteolytic enzymes with such substrate specificity were already identified in mastitic bovine and sheep milk [91,92], and were predicted to be involved in the generation of bovine homologs of the peptides reported in this study [40,53].

3.5. Peptide Function Prediction

Identified peptides were then analyzed by bioinformatics in order to predict their putative activity and, consequently, whether they should play a physiological function. In the literature, it is well known that peptides deriving from the hydrolysis of caseins may present multiple activities [93,94].
As reported in Table 3, several peptides showed potential antimicrobial, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Our results agree with those obtained in some peptidomic studies conducted on bovine mastitis [52], in which similar functions were predicted for homologous peptides. In order to corroborate this prediction, all deregulated peptides identified in this study were further subjected to bioinformatic analysis for recognizing their possible tendency to generate an amphipathic helix in a membrane-like environment. Figure S2 shows those for which an antimicrobial activity was predicted, all of which also showed an amphipathic character.

4. Conclusions

Mastitis is associated with a significant impairment of milk quality and production. To date, pathology diagnosis in goats occurs essentially by evaluation of clinical signs and/or bacteriological examination. Therefore, development of novel analytical tools for a rapid and non-invasive diagnosis of mastitis in goats are strongly encouraged. In this study, MALDI-TOF-MS-based peptidomic profiling method of goat milk allowed discriminating between healthy and subclinical/clinical mastitic samples, defining a panel of peptide biomarkers useful to this purpose. This molecular panel may also eventually be used for early diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in goats, before the onset of the pathology at the clinical level, and regardless of the value of the somatic cells present in milk samples. Conversely, this approach did not differentiate clinical and subclinical samples. Above-mentioned peptides were molecular homologs of compounds already identified as candidate disease biomarkers for bovine mastitis [40,45,52,53]; some of them were previously proved to elicit a significant antimicrobial activity. They generally derived from an increased proteolytic activity in mastitic goat milk, in agreement to what was already detected in this and other mammals.
Whenever dedicated instruments and well-experienced personnel are available, the use of the rapid and low-cost analytical procedure reported in this study may help in recognizing the occurrence of mastitis in goat milk samples, even though no evident clinical signs in the mammary gland of corresponding animals are observed. In fact, the whole analytical workflow (from initial sample processing to MALDI-TOF-MS data analysis output) it is no more than an hour-long, and the cost of the reagents (excluding instrument service) is nowadays negligible. At present, the technology proposed here cannot substitute classical bacteriological tests for mastitis detection, although it can be easily integrated with some of them. In the future, being based on the definition of a peptide biomarker panel, we believe it will open the way to the development of novel, highly informative immunoassays focused on the combined, simultaneous evaluation of multiple species.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/9/8/193/s1. Table S1: Enzymes and cleavage patterns used by Enzyme-Predictor, Figure S1: Mass spectrum of a control (A) and a clinical with SCC > 1500 × 103 cells (B) milk sample, Figure S2: Helical wheel representation of differentially represented peptides in mastitic milk samples with respect to control.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.D. and H.A.H.; Methodology and investigation, C.D., M.M., M.S.S., H.A.H., A.M.G.; Formal analysis and data curation, C.D., M.M., M.S.S., A.S.; Original draft preparation, C.D., M.S.S.; Review and editing, C.D., M.S.S., A.S.; Funding acquisition, C.D.A. and H.A.H.; Project administration, C.D.; Supervision, A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Bilateral Agreement between National Research Council of Italy and National Research Center of Egypt “Identification of intra-mammary infection in different goat breeds in Egypt using novel protein and gene biomarkers” and in part by AGER 2 Project under grant n. 2017-1130.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haenlein, G.F.H. Goat milk in human nutrition. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 51, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kumar, H.; Yadav, D.; Kumar, N. Nutritional and nutraceutical proprieties of goat milk—A review. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 69, 513–518. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernacka, H. Health-promoting properties of goat milk. Med. Wet. 2011, 67, 507–511. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tomotake, H.; Okuyama, R.; Katagiri, M.; Fuzita, M.; Yamato, M.; Ota, F. Comparsion between Holstein cow’s milk and Japanese Saanen goat’s milk in fatty acid composition, lipid digestibility and protein profile. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2006, 70, 2771–2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Núñez-Sáncheza, N.; Martínez-Marín, A.L.; Polvillo, O.; Fernández-Cabanás, V.M.; Carrizosa, J.; Urrutia, B.; Serradilla, J.M. Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) for determination of milk fat fatty acid profile of goats. Food Chem. 2016, 190, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tripathi, M.K. Effect of nutrition on production, composition, fatty acids and nutraceutical properties of milk. J. Adv. Dairy Res. 2014, 2, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Boutoidal, K.; Ferrandini, E.; Rovira, S.; Garcia, V.; Lopez, M.B. Effect of feeding goats with Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis spp.) by products on milk and cheese properties. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 112, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Durge, S.M.; Tripathi, M.K.; Prabhat, T.; Dutta, N.; Rout, P.K.; Chaudhary, U.B. Intake, nutrient utilization, rumen fermentation, microbial hydrolytic enzymes and hemato-biochemical attributes of lactating goats fed concentrates containing Brassica juncea oil meal. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 121, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garcia, V.; Rovira, S.; Boutoial, K.; Lopez, M.B. Improvement in goat milk quality. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 121, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barrón-Bravo, O.G.; Gutiérrez-Chàvez, A.J.; Angel-Sahagùn, C.A.; Montaldo, H.H.; Shepard, L.; Valencia-Posadas, M. Losses in milk yield, fat and protein contents according to different levels of somatic cell count in dairy goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 113, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jiménez-Granado, R.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M.; Arce, C.; Rodríguez-Estévez, V. Factors affecting somatic cell count in dairy goats: A review. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 12, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ceniti, C.; Britti, D.; Santoro, A.M.L.; Musarella, R.; Ciambrone, L.; Casalinuovo, F.; Costanzo, N. Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance profile of isolates causing clinical mastitis in dairy animals. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2017, 6, 6612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Contreras, A.; Sierra, D.; Sánchez, A.; Corrales, J.C.; Marco, J.C.; Paape, M.J.; Gonzalo, C. Mastitis in small ruminants. Small Rumin. Res. 2007, 68, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Silanikove, N.; Merin, U.; Shapiro, F.; Leitner, G. Subclinical mastitis in goats is associated with upregulation of nitric oxide-derived oxidative stress that causes reduction of milk antioxidative properties and impairment of its quality. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3449–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Viguier, C.; Arora, S.; Gilmartin, N.; Welbeck, K.; O’Kennedy, R. Mastitis detection: Current trends and future perspectives. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dulin, A.M.; Paape, M.J.; Schultze, W.D.; Weinland, B.T. Effect of parity, stage of lactation, and intramammary infection on concentration of somatic cells and cytoplasmic particles in goat milk. J. Dairy Sci. 1983, 66, 2426–2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Park, Y.W.; Humphrey, R.D. Bacterial cell counts in goat milk and their correlations with somatic cell counts, percent fat, and protein. J. Dairy Sci. 1986, 69, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Koop, G.; van Werven, T.; Toft, N.; Nielen, M. Estimating test characteristics of somatic cell count to detect Staphylococcus aureus-infected dairy goats using latent class analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2902–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wooding, F.B.P.; Peaker, M.; Linzell, J.L. Theories of milk secretion: Evidence from the electron microscopic examination of milk. Nature 1970, 226, 762–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wooding, F.B.P.; Morgan, G.; Craig, H. “Sunbursts” and “christiesomes”: Cellular fragments in normal cow and goat milk. Cell Tissue Res. 1977, 185, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bergonier, D.; De Crémoux, R.; Rupp, R.; Lagriffoul, G.; Berthelot, X. Mastitis of dairy small ruminants. Vet. Res. 2003, 34, 689–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Clark, S.; Mora García, M.B. A 100-Year Review: Advances in goat milk research. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10026–10044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Koop, G.; Nielen, M.; van Werven, T. Diagnostic tools to monitor udder health in dairy goats. Vet. Q. 2012, 32, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kandeel, S.A.; Morin, D.E.; Calloway, C.D.; Constable, P.D. Association of California mastitis test scores with intramammary infection status in lactating dairy cows admitted to a veterinary teaching hospital. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2018, 32, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Rossi, R.S.; Amarante, A.F.; Correia, L.B.N.; Guerra, S.T.; Nobrega, D.B.; Latosinski, G.S.; Rossi, B.F.; Rall, V.L.M.; Pantoja, J. Diagnostic accuracy of Somaticell, California mastitis test, and microbiological examination of composite milk to detect Streptococcus agalactiae intramammary infections. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10220–10229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Cremonesi, P.; Ceccarani, C.; Curone, G.; Severgnini, M.; Pollera, C.; Bronzo, V.; Riva, F.; Addis, M.F.; Filipe, J.; Amadori, M.; et al. Milk microbiome diversity and bacterial group prevalence in a comparison between healthy Holstein Friesian and Rendena cows. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Derakhshani, H.; Plaizier, J.C.; De Buck, J.; Barkema, H.W.; Khafipour, E. Composition of the teat canal and intramammary microbiota of dairy cows subjected to antimicrobial dry cow therapy and internal teat sealant. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10191–10205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. El-Sayed, A.; Awad, W.; Abdou, N.E.; Vázquez, H.C. Molecular biological tools applied for identification of mastitis causing pathogens. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2017, 5, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lima, S.F.; de Souza Bicalho, M.L.; Bicalho, R.C. Evaluation of milk sample fractions for characterization of milk microbiota from healthy and clinical mastitis cows. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Behera, S.; Rana, R.; Gupta, P.K.; Kumar, D.; Rekha, V.; Arun, T.R.; Jena, D. Development of real-time PCR assay for the detection of Mycoplasma bovis. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tie, Z.; Chunguang, W.; Xiaoyuan, W.; Xinghua, Z.; Xiuhui, Z. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for detection of Staphylococcus aureus in dairy cow suffering from mastitis. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012, 2012, 435982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sheet, O.H.; Grabowski, N.T.; Klein, G.; Abdulmawjood, A. Development and validation of a loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus in bovine mastitis milk samples. Mol. Cell Probes 2016, 30, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oultram, J.W.; Ganda, E.K.; Boulding, S.C.; Bicalho, R.C.; Oikonomou, G. A metataxonomic approach could be considered for cattle clinical mastitis diagnostics. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Cornelissen, J.B.W.J.; De Greeff, A.; Heuvelink, A.E.; Swarts, M.; Smith, H.E.; Van der Wal, F.J. Rapid detection of Streptococcus uberis in raw milk by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 4270–4281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ashraf, A.; Imran, M. Diagnosis of bovine mastitis: From laboratory to farm. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 1193–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smolenski, G.; Haines, S.; Kwan, F.Y.-S.; Bond, J.; Farr, V.; Davis, S.R.; Stelwagen, K.; Wheeler, T.T. Characterisation of host defence proteins in milk using a proteomic approach. J. Proteome Res. 2007, 6, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boehmer, J.L.; Bannerman, D.D.; Shefcheck, K.; Ward, J.L. Proteomic analysis of differentially expressed proteins in bovine milk during experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 4206–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Danielsen, M.; Codrea, M.C.; Ingvartsen, K.L.; Friggens, N.C.; Bendixen, E.; Røntved, C.M. Quantitative milk proteomics-host responses to lipopolysaccharide-mediated inflammation of bovine mammary gland. Proteomics 2010, 10, 2240–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Ibeagha, A.E.; Messier, S.; Zhao, X. Proteomics, genomics, and pathway analyses of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus infected milk whey reveal molecular pathways and networks involved in mastitis. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9, 4604–4619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Larsen, L.B.; Hinz, K.; Jørgensen, A.L.; Møller, H.S.; Wellnitz, O.; Bruckmaier, R.M.; Kelly, A.L. Proteomic and peptidomic study of proteolysis in quarter milk after infusion with lipoteichoic acid from Staphylococcus aureus. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5613–5626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hinz, K.; Larsen, L.B.; Wellnitz, O.; Bruckmaier, R.M.; Kelly, A.L. Proteolytic and proteomic changes in milk at quarter level following infusion with Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 1655–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Alonso-Fauste, I.; Andrés, M.; Iturralde, M.; Lampreave, F.; Gallart, J.; Álava, M.A. Proteomic characterization by 2-DE in bovine serum and whey from healthy and mastitis affected farm animals. J. Proteom. 2012, 75, 3015–3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, L.; Boeren, S.; van Hooijdonk, A.C.; Vervoort, J.M.; Hettinga, K.A. A proteomic perspective on the changes in milk proteins due to high somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 5339–5351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Mudaliar, M.; Tassi, R.; Thomas, F.C.; McNeilly, T.N.; Weidt, S.K.; McLaughlin, M.; Wilson, D.; Burchmore, R.; Herzyk, P.; Eckersall, P.D.; et al. Mastitomics, the integrated omics of bovine milk in an experimental model of Streptococcus uberis mastitis: 2. Label-free relative quantitative proteomics. Mol. Biosyst. 2016, 12, 2748–2761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Thomas, F.C.; Mullen, W.; Tassi, R.; Ramírez-Torres, A.; Mudaliar, M.; McNeilly, T.N.; Zadoks, R.N.; Burchmore, R.; David Eckersall, P. Mastitomics, the integrated omics of bovine milk in an experimental model of Streptococcus uberis mastitis: 1. High abundance proteins, acute phase proteins and peptidomics. Mol. Biosyst. 2016, 12, 2735–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abdelmegid, S.; Murugaiyan, J.; Abo-Ismail, M.; Caswell, J.L.; Kelton, D.; Kirby, G.M. Identification of Host Defense-Related Proteins Using Label-Free Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Milk Whey from Cows with Staphylococcus aureus Subclinical Mastitis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Addis, M.F.; Pisanu, S.; Ghisaura, S.; Pagnozzi, D.; Marogna, G.; Tanca, A.; Biosa, G.; Cacciotto, C.; Alberti, A.; Pittau, M.; et al. Proteomics and pathway analyses of the milk fat globule in sheep naturally infected by Mycoplasma agalactiae provide indications of the in vivo response of the mammary epithelium to bacterial infection. Infect. Immun. 2011, 79, 3833–3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Chiaradia, E.; Valiani, A.; Tartaglia, M.; Scoppetta, F.; Renzone, G.; Arena, S.; Avellini, L.; Benda, S.; Gaiti, A.; Scaloni, A. Ovine subclinical mastitis: Proteomic analysis of whey and milk fat globules unveils putative diagnostic biomarkers in milk. J. Proteom. 2013, 83, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Katsafadou, A.I.; Tsangaris, G.T.; Anagnostopoulos, A.K.; Billinis, C.; Barbagianni, M.S.; Vasileiou, N.G.C.; Spanos, S.A.; Mavrogianni, V.S.; Fthenakis, G.C. Differential quantitative proteomics study of experimental Mannheimia haemolytica mastitis in sheep. J. Proteom. 2019, 205, 103393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Olumee-Shabon, Z.; Swain, T.; Smith, E.A.; Tall, E.; Boehmer, J.L. Proteomic analysis of differentially expressed proteins in caprine milk during experimentally induced endotoxin mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2903–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pisanu, S.; Cacciotto, C.; Pagnozzi, D.; Uzzau, S.; Pollera, C.; Penati, M.; Bronzo, V.; Addis, M.F. Impact of Staphylococcus aureus infection on the late lactation goat milk proteome: New perspectives for monitoring and understanding mastitis in dairy goats. J. Proteom. 2020, 221, 103763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mansor, R.; Mullen, W.; Albalat, A.; Zerefos, P.; Mischak, H.; Barrett, D.C.; Biggs, A.; Eckersall, P.D. A peptidomic approach to biomarker discovery for bovine mastitis. J. Proteom. 2013, 85, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Guerrero, A.; Dallas, D.C.; Contreras, S.; Bhandari, A.; Cánovas, A.; Islas-Trejo, A.; Medrano, J.F.; Parker, E.A.; Wang, M.; Hettinga, K.; et al. Peptidomic analysis of healthy and subclinically mastitic bovine milk. Int. Dairy J. 2015, 46, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Magro, M.; Zaccarin, M.; Miotto, G.; Da-Dalt, L.; Baratella, D.; Fariselli, P.; Gabai, G.; Vianello, F. Analysis of hard protein corona composition on selective iron oxide nanoparticles by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: Identification and amplification of a hidden mastitis biomarker in milk proteome. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 2949–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sassi, M.; Arena, S.; Scaloni, A. MALDI-TOF-MS Platform for Integrated Proteomic and Peptidomic Profiling of Milk Samples Allows Rapid Detection of Food Adulterations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 7093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Arena, S.; Salzano, A.M.; Scaloni, A. Identification of protein markers for the occurrence of defrosted material in milk through a MALDI-TOF-MS profiling approach. J. Proteom. 2016, 147, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. D’Ambrosio, C.; Sarubbi, F.; Scaloni, A.; Rossetti, C.; Grazioli, G.; Auriemma, G.; Perucatti, A.; Spagnuolo, M.S. Effect of short-term water restriction on oxidative and inflammatory status of sheep (Ovis aries) reared in Southern Italy. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 162, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kelly, W.G. Veterinary Clinical Diagnosis, 3rd ed.; Eastbourne: London, UK, 1984; p. 440. [Google Scholar]
  59. Malinowski, E.; Kłossowska, A. Diagnostyka Zakażeń Wymienia. Wyd. PIWet Puławy 2002, 46, 289–294. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hussein, H.A.; El-Razik, K.A.E.L.-H.A.; Gomaa, A.M.; Elbayoumy, M.K.; Abdelrahman, K.A.; Hosein, H.I. Milk amyloid A as a biomarker for diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in cattle. Vet. World 2018, 11, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Edwards, P.R.; Ewing, W.H. Identification of Enterobacteriaceae, 4th ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 581–582. [Google Scholar]
  62. Quinn, P.J.; Markey, B.K.; Leonard, F.C.; Fitz Patrick, E.S.; Fanning, S.; Hartigan, P.J. Pasteurella species, Mannheimia haemolytica and Bibersteinia trehalosi. Veterinary Microbiology and Microbial Diseases, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2011; pp. 299–308. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mishra, A.K.; Sharma, N.; Singh, D.D.; Gururaj, K.; Abhishek Kumar, V.; Sharma, D.K. Prevalence and bacterial etiology of subclinical mastitis in goats reared in organized farms. Vet. World 2018, 11, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raynal-Ljutovac, K.; Gaborit, P.; Lauret, A. The relationship between quality criteria of goat milk, its technological properties and the quality of the final products. Small Rumin. Res. 2005, 60, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Paape, M.J.; Wiggans, G.R.; Bannerman, D.D.; Thomas, D.L.; Sanders, A.H.; Contreras, A.; Moroni, P.; Miller, R.H. Monitoring goat and sheep milk somatic cell counts. Small Rumin. Res. 2007, 68, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. International Dairy Federation. Bovine Mastitis: Definition and Guidelines for Diagnosis; International Dairy Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  67. Moroni, P.; Pisoni, G.; Savoini, G.; van Lier, E.; Acuña, S.; Damián, J.P.; Meikle, A. Influence of Estrus of Dairy Goats on Somatic Cell Count, Milk Traits, and Sex Steroid Receptors in the Mammary Gland. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gonzalo, C. Somatic cell of sheep and goat milks, analytical, sanitary, productive and technological aspects. Int. Dairy Fed. Spec. Issue 2005, 3, 128–133. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mavrogenis, A.P.; Koumas, A.; Kakoyiannis, C.K.; Taliotis, C.H. Use of somatic cell counts for the detection of subclinical mastitis in sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 1995, 17, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Cremoux, R.; Poutrel, B.; Berny, F. Use of milk somatic cell counts (SCC) for presumptive diagnosis of intramammary infections in goats. In Proceedings of the Third International Mastitis Seminar, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 28 May–1 June 1995; pp. 90–91. [Google Scholar]
  71. Paape, M.J.; Poutrel, B.; Contreras, A.; Marco, J.C.; Capuco, A.V. Milk somatic cells and lactation in small ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Contreras, A.; Sierra, D.; Corrales, J.C.; Sánchez, A.; Marco, J. Physiological threshold of somatic-cell count and California Mastitis Test for diagnosis of caprine subclinical mastitis. Small Rumin. Res. 1996, 21, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Contreras, A.; Luengo, C.; Sánchez, A.; Corrales, J.C. The role of intramammary pathogens in dairy goats. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 79, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Souza, F.N.; Blagitz, M.G.; Penna, C.F.A.M.; Della Libera, A.M.M.P.; Heinemann, M.B.; Cerqueira, M.M.O.P. Somatic cell count in small ruminants: Friend or foe? Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 107, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fragkou, I.A.; Boscos, C.M.; Fthenakis, G.C. Diagnosis of clinical or subclinical mastitis in ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 118, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Leitner, G.; Merin, U.; Silanikove, N. Effects of glandular bacterial infection and stage of lactation on milk clotting parameters: Comparison among cows, goats and sheep. Int. Dairy J. 2011, 21, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. O’Donnell, R.; Holland, J.W.; Deeth, H.C.; Alewood, P. Milk proteomics. Int. Dairy J. 2004, 14, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kelly, A.L.; O’Flaherty, F.; Fox, P.F. Indigenous proteolytic enzymes in milk: A brief overview of the present stage of knowledge. Int. Dairy J. 2006, 16, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fleminger, G.; Heftsi, R.; Uzi, M.; Nissim, S.; Gabriel, L. Chemical and structural characterization of bacterially-derived casein peptides that impair milk clotting. Int. Dairy J. 2011, 21, 914–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Birkemo, G.A.; O’Sullivan, O.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C. Antimicrobial activity of two peptides casecidin 15 and 17, found naturally in bovine colostrum. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 106, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sandré, C.; Gleizes, A.; Forestier, F.; Gorges-Kergot, R.; Chilmonczyk, S.; Léonil, J.; Moreau, M.C.; Labarre, C. A peptide derived from bovine beta-casein modulates functional properties of bone marrow-derived macrophages from germfree and human flora-associated mice. J. Nutr. 2001, 131, 2936–2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Eckersall, P.D. Acute phase proteins: From research laboratory to clinic. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2010, 39, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tóthová, C.; Nagy, O.; Kovác, G. Acute phase proteins and their use in the diagnosis of diseases in ruminants: A review. Vet. Med. 2014, 59, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Lahov, E.; Regelson, W. Antibacterial and immunostimulating casein-derived substances from milk: Casecidin, isracidin peptides. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1996, 34, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Taghdiri, M.; Karim, G.; Safi, S.; Foroushani, A.R.; Motalebi, A. Study on the accuracy of milk amyloid A test and other diagnostic methods for identification of milk quality. Vet. Res. Forum 2018, 9, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Miglio, A.; Moscati, L.; Fruganti, G.; Pela, M.; Scoccia, E.; Valiani, A.; Maresca, C. Use of milk amyloid A in the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in dairy ewes. J. Dairy Res. 2013, 80, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. O’Mahony, M.; Healy, A.; Harte, D.; Walshe, K.G.; Torgerson, P.R.; Doherty, M.L. Milk amyloid A: Correlation with cellular indices of mammary inflammation in cows with normal and raised serum amyloid A. Res. Vet. Sci. 2006, 80, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Safi, S.; Khoshvaghti, A.; Jafarzadeh, S.R.; Mahmoud, B.; Nowrouzian, I. Acute phase proteins in the diagnosis of bovine subclinical mastitis. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2009, 38, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Åkerstedt, M.; Waller, K.P.; Sternesjö, Å. Haptoglobin and serum amyloid A in relation to the somatic cell count in quarter, cow composite and bulk tank milk samples. J. Dairy Res. 2007, 74, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Åkerstedt, M.; Waller, K.P.; Sternesjö, Å. Haptoglobin and serum amyloid A in bulk tank milk in relation to raw milk quality. J. Dairy Res. 2009, 76, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Considine, T.; Healy, A.; Kelly, A.L.; McSweeney, P.L.H. Hydrolysis of bovine caseins by cathepsin B, a cysteine proteinase endogenous to milk. Int. Dairy J. 2004, 14, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Albenzio, M.; Santillo, A.; Caroprese, M.; D’Angelo, F.; Marino, R.; Sevi, A. Role of endogenous enzymes in proteolysis of sheep milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Nielsen, S.D.; Beverly, R.L.; Qu, Y.; Dallas, Y. Milk bioactive peptide database: A comprehensive database of milk protein-derived bioactive peptides and novel visualization. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sah, B.N.P.; Vasiljevic, T.; McKechnie, S.; Donkor, O.N. Antioxidative and antibacterial peptides derived from bovine milk proteins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 726–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Classification of goat milk samples by different parameters. (A) Classification according to the clinical examination of goats; (B) classification according to bacteriological analysis of goat milk samples; (C) classification according to the combination of clinical examination and bacteriological analysis; (D) classification according to the combination of clinical examination, bacteriological analysis and evaluation of milk somatic cell count (SCC) values.
Figure 1. Classification of goat milk samples by different parameters. (A) Classification according to the clinical examination of goats; (B) classification according to bacteriological analysis of goat milk samples; (C) classification according to the combination of clinical examination and bacteriological analysis; (D) classification according to the combination of clinical examination, bacteriological analysis and evaluation of milk somatic cell count (SCC) values.
Biology 09 00193 g001
Figure 2. Average MALDI-TOF mass spectra of control milk samples (red), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL (green), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL (blue), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL (apple green), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL (violet), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL (dark green), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL (dark blue).
Figure 2. Average MALDI-TOF mass spectra of control milk samples (red), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL (green), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL (blue), subclinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL (apple green), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL (violet), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values = 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL (dark green), clinical mastitic milk samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL (dark blue).
Biology 09 00193 g002
Figure 3. Average intensity trends of serum amyloid A3 peptide markers identified by MALDI-TOF-MS profiling of subclinical, clinical and control milk samples.
Figure 3. Average intensity trends of serum amyloid A3 peptide markers identified by MALDI-TOF-MS profiling of subclinical, clinical and control milk samples.
Biology 09 00193 g003
Figure 4. Determination of milk amyloid A in mastitic goat milk samples. Protein from subclinical (left) and clinical (right) samples with different SCC was titrated by sandwich ELISA according to what reported in the experimental section. Samples were analyzed in duplicate and data are reported as mean values ± SEM. The program GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) was used to perform two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Determination of milk amyloid A in mastitic goat milk samples. Protein from subclinical (left) and clinical (right) samples with different SCC was titrated by sandwich ELISA according to what reported in the experimental section. Samples were analyzed in duplicate and data are reported as mean values ± SEM. The program GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) was used to perform two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Biology 09 00193 g004
Figure 5. Evaluation of the various proteolytic enzymes putatively involved in the release of the milk peptides. A logarithmic scatter plot graph plotted using odds ratio (X-axis) and the total sites cleaved by the enzyme at termini (Y-axis).
Figure 5. Evaluation of the various proteolytic enzymes putatively involved in the release of the milk peptides. A logarithmic scatter plot graph plotted using odds ratio (X-axis) and the total sites cleaved by the enzyme at termini (Y-axis).
Biology 09 00193 g005
Table 1. MALDI-TOF-MS profiling data of peptides from subclinical (S) and clinical (CL) goat milk groups with respect to corresponding control (C) one. Mass values refer to m/z (Da); DAve values correspond to the difference between the maximal and the minimal average peak area/intensity of all classes, respectively. PTTA, PWKW and PAD values correspond to the p-values of t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Anderson–Darling test, respectively. Ave values correspond to the peak area/intensity average values of all classes. Fold change values correspond to the Ave values ratio between each class and control (C) class. Fold change values ≥ 1.5 and ≤ 0.67 are reported as highlighted in red and blue color; those showing common and coherent increasing or decreasing trends in both clinical and subclinical forms having the same SCC cataloging are highlighted in corresponding darker colors. S < 500, subclinical samples with SCC values < 500×103 cells/mL; S = 500 −1500, subclinical samples with SCC values within the range 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL; S > 1500, subclinical samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL; CL < 500, clinical samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL; CL = 500–1500, clinical samples with SCC values within the range 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL; CL > 1500, clinical samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL.
Table 1. MALDI-TOF-MS profiling data of peptides from subclinical (S) and clinical (CL) goat milk groups with respect to corresponding control (C) one. Mass values refer to m/z (Da); DAve values correspond to the difference between the maximal and the minimal average peak area/intensity of all classes, respectively. PTTA, PWKW and PAD values correspond to the p-values of t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Anderson–Darling test, respectively. Ave values correspond to the peak area/intensity average values of all classes. Fold change values correspond to the Ave values ratio between each class and control (C) class. Fold change values ≥ 1.5 and ≤ 0.67 are reported as highlighted in red and blue color; those showing common and coherent increasing or decreasing trends in both clinical and subclinical forms having the same SCC cataloging are highlighted in corresponding darker colors. S < 500, subclinical samples with SCC values < 500×103 cells/mL; S = 500 −1500, subclinical samples with SCC values within the range 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL; S > 1500, subclinical samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL; CL < 500, clinical samples with SCC values < 500 × 103 cells/mL; CL = 500–1500, clinical samples with SCC values within the range 500–1500 × 103 cells/mL; CL > 1500, clinical samples with SCC values > 1500 × 103 cells/mL.
Mass ValueDAvePTTAPWKWPADAveFold Change
CTRS < 500S = 500–1500S > 1500CL < 500CL = 500–1500CL > 1500S < 500/CS = 500–1500/CS > 1500/CCL < 500/CCL = 500–1500/CCL > 1500/C
1053.440.630.002520.000215<0.0000011.521.231.591.440.971.241.110.811.050.950.640.820.73
1153.172.98<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000011.622.644.63.853.894.112.531.632.842.382.402.541.56
1210.031.660.0000350.000421<0.0000012.321.572.942.673.181.511.550.681.271.151.370.650.67
1266.791.480.00000540.0000122<0.0000011.152.032.041.582.631.541.251.771.771.372.291.341.09
1307.034.93<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.831.522.872.615.762.411.511.833.463.146.942.901.82
1491.762.510.000009580.00478<0.0000011.9634.473.243.342.434.011.532.281.651.701.242.05
1602.673.83<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000012.023.614.035.163.632.815.851.792.002.551.801.392.90
1621.692.47<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000012.293.873.944.632.162.64.551.691.722.020.941.141.99
1703.726.07<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000012.133.665.55.578.24.836.261.722.582.623.852.272.94
1720.733.990.00006170.0063<0.0000014.018.017.257.646.86.37.522.001.811.911.701.571.88
1784.825.93<0.0000010.0000715<0.0000015.7711.5411.710.377.966.0110.82.002.031.801.381.041.87
1837.786.87<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000017.471.370.921.291.570.60.960.180.120.170.210.080.13
1853.385.2<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000015.433.522.522.646.71.51.50.650.460.491.230.280.28
1884.739.36<0.0000010.00129<0.0000018.4317.114.689.8714.137.7510.092.031.741.171.680.921.20
2000.243.070.05890.000779<0.0000013.365.744.955.346.444.525.921.711.471.591.921.351.76
2110.715.18<0.0000010.0168<0.0000015.788.716.844.538.313.536.81.511.180.781.440.611.18
2181.6211.74<0.000001<0.000001<0.00000112.362.321.941.862.260.621.790.190.160.150.180.050.14
2195.897.58<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000018.433.12.622.683.490.842.170.370.310.320.410.100.26
2257.882.70.1230.201<0.0000014.464.684.114.016.714.024.061.050.920.901.500.900.91
2295.142.64<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000014.043.152.61.412.952.061.640.780.640.350.730.510.41
2670.721.06<0.0000010.0000017<0.0000010.981.171.481.441.152.041.641.191.511.471.172.081.67
2812.251.380.0001730.00122<0.0000011.691.541.491.851.592.871.640.910.881.090.941.700.97
2928.881.76<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000012.522.031.30.762.30.750.910.810.520.300.910.300.36
3270.312.570.003930.000858<0.0000014.482.173.012.411.913.412.620.480.670.540.430.760.58
3293.951.150.000480.0000715<0.0000012.411.931.561.482.531.381.380.800.650.611.050.570.57
3382.472.470.000001020.0000715<0.0000013.142.273.341.792.024.263.070.721.060.570.641.360.98
3407.20.960.00001110.00000944<0.0000012.271.41.581.311.771.761.30.620.700.580.780.780.57
3481.562.92<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000013.3733.21.062.633.972.260.890.950.310.781.180.67
3693.690.49<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.740.730.460.370.490.860.570.990.620.500.661.160.77
3849.310.5<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.690.850.420.350.620.790.411.230.610.510.901.140.59
3944.680.880.02670.0798<0.0000010.821.460.640.621.040.580.771.780.780.761.270.710.94
4054.9412.51<0.000001<0.000001<0.00000117.379.057.224.9713.014.865.990.520.420.290.750.280.34
4162.486.990.000008280.0000379<0.00000112.747.077.076.687.867.495.760.550.550.520.620.590.45
4264.359.27<0.000001<0.000001<0.00000114.597.778.176.489.338.095.320.530.560.440.640.550.36
4356.772.890.0008030.000175<0.0000011.381.352.531.664.242.861.730.981.831.203.072.071.25
4810.20.94<0.0000010.0000168<0.0000010.880.950.491.320.380.550.971.080.561.500.430.631.10
4922.044.58<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.813.732.325.390.92.344.354.602.866.651.112.895.37
5017.099.67<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000011.538.777.3811.093.849.8811.25.734.827.252.516.467.32
5107.345.77<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.352.633.565.883.346.086.127.5110.1716.809.5417.3717.49
5192.211.5<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.150.630.911.650.881.471.594.206.0711.005.879.8010.60
5353.010.55<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.860.830.660.310.590.510.310.970.770.360.690.590.36
5828.22.11<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.421.81.342.530.521.482.244.293.196.021.243.525.33
5914.714.01<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.763.983.314.771.63.954.745.244.366.282.115.206.24
6001.461.55<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.170.720.941.660.681.151.724.245.539.764.006.7610.12
6279.610.35<0.000001<0.000001<0.0000010.480.360.250.130.180.20.150.750.520.270.380.420.31
Table 2. Deregulated peptides identified by nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS procedures. Experimental MALDI-TOF-MS (average—Av) mass values, theoretical (average—Av and monoisotopic—Mi) mass values, experimental (monoisotopic) nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap m/z and charge values, amino acid sequence, parental protein names, protein accession, protein fragment assignment and modifications are reported. Mox, oxidized methionine; pGlu, N-terminal pyroglutamic acid.
Table 2. Deregulated peptides identified by nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS procedures. Experimental MALDI-TOF-MS (average—Av) mass values, theoretical (average—Av and monoisotopic—Mi) mass values, experimental (monoisotopic) nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap m/z and charge values, amino acid sequence, parental protein names, protein accession, protein fragment assignment and modifications are reported. Mox, oxidized methionine; pGlu, N-terminal pyroglutamic acid.
Exp. MALDI MH+ Value (Av)Theor. MH+ Value (Av)Theor. MH+ Value (Mi)Exp. Nanolc-ESI-Q-Orbitrap m/zChargePeptide SequenceParental ProteinAccessionFragment
1053.441053.281052.62526.812LGPVRGPFPIβ-caseinP33048196–205
1153.171152.421151.69576.352GPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048197–207
1210.031210.411209.66605.332TNAIPYVRYLαs2-caseinP33049199–208
1266.791265.581264.77632.892VLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048195–206
1307.031305.431304.65652.832INHQGLSPEVPNαs1-caseinNP_001272624.121–32
1491.761491.811490.87745.942EPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048193–206
1602.671602.911601.9801.452QEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048192–206 pGlu
1621.691619.941618.92809.462QEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048192–206
1703.721702.041700.97850.982QEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048192–207 pGlu
1720.731719.071717.99859.52QEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048192–207
1784.821783.121781.99891.502LYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIβ-caseinP33048190–205
1837.781836.031834.85917.932QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMserum amyloid A3ABQ51197.119–35 pGlu
1853.381852.031850.84925.922QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMserum amyloid A3ABQ51197.119–35 Mox, pGlu
1884.731882.251881.06941.042YQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048191–207
2000.242001.422000.19500.804SLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRβ-caseinP33048164–181(A177→V)
2110.712108.572107.221054.122LLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048189–207
2181.622178.432177.03726.343QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMWRserum amyloid A3ABQ51197.119–37 pGlu
2195.892194.432193.02731.683QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMWRserum amyloid A3ABQ51197.119–37 Mox, pGlu
2257.882255.742254.291127.662FLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048188–207
2295.142294.722293.21765.073AMKPWTQPKTNAIPYVRYLαs2-caseinP33049190–208 Mox
2670.722665.232663.53888.523PIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048184–207
2812.252812.432810.561405.782MPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048183–207 Mox
2928.882927.522925.59975.873DMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIIVβ-caseinP33048182–207 Mox
3270.313266.873264.751088.923AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIβ-caseinP33048177–205 Mox
3293.953294.923292.781098.273VVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIβ-caseinP33048177–205(A177→V) Mox
3382.473380.033377.841126.623AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048177–206 Mox
3407.23407.063404.851135.963VPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILNβ-caseinP33048178–207(V207→N)
3481.563479.163476.911159.643AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048177–207 Mox
3693.693696.283693.991232.013RPKHPINHQGLSPEVLNENLLRFVVAPFPEVFαs1-caseinNP_001272624.116–47(P31→L)
3849.313852.473850.10642.526RPKHPINHQGLSPEVLNENLLRFVVAPFPEVFRαs1-caseinNP_001272624.116–48(P31→L)
3944.683943.733941.181314.43VLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPβ-caseinP33048170–204(A177→V) Mox
4054.944054.914052.281013.824LPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048171–206(A177→V)
4162.484154.054151.351384.453VLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048170–206(A177→V)
4264.354269.184266.421422.813VLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048170–207(A177→V) Mox
4356.774353.34350.491088.374KVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048169–207
4810.24810.784807.701202.684SLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048164–206(A177→V) Mox;
163–205(A177→V) Mox
4922.044923.944920.791230.964LSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048163–206(A177→V) Mox
5017.095023.085019.861004.775VLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048162–206(A177→V) Mox
5107.345109.135105.871021.985QSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIβ-caseinP33048160–205(A177→V);
5192.215181.235177.921036.375SVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048161–207 Mox
5353.015352.395348.991070.585QSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILNβ-caseinP33048160–207(A177→V, V207→N) Mox
5828.25829.955826.101166.075LVQSWMHQPPQPLSPTVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLβ-caseinP33048138–189 Mox
5914.715911.135907.281182.305TVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILβ-caseinP33048154–206(A177→V) Mox
6001.465998.215994.311199.745TVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048154–207 2Mox
6279.616279.566275.481255.885LSPTVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILVβ-caseinP33048151–207 Mox
Table 3. Bioinformatic analysis for prediction of possible functions of differentially represented milk peptides here identified in mastitic goat samples. Prediction was performed as reported in the experimental section. Reported are prediction score from: (i) CAMPR3 software and (ii) AMP scanner software (for antimicrobial); (iii) dPABBs software (for antibiofilm); (iv) Antiinflam software (for antiinflammatory); (v) AVPPRED software (for composition model—CM and physiochemical model—PM) (for antiviral). Highlighted are prediction scores having numerical values above the threshold limits.
Table 3. Bioinformatic analysis for prediction of possible functions of differentially represented milk peptides here identified in mastitic goat samples. Prediction was performed as reported in the experimental section. Reported are prediction score from: (i) CAMPR3 software and (ii) AMP scanner software (for antimicrobial); (iii) dPABBs software (for antibiofilm); (iv) Antiinflam software (for antiinflammatory); (v) AVPPRED software (for composition model—CM and physiochemical model—PM) (for antiviral). Highlighted are prediction scores having numerical values above the threshold limits.
PeptideCAMPR3 ScoreAMP Scanner ScoredPABBs ScoreAntiInflam ScoreAVPPRED Score (CM; PM)
LGPVRGPFPI0.440.78−1.23−0.7040.2719.52
GPVRGPFPILV0.420.79−0.830.9041.4718.95
TNAIPYVRYL0.040.750.392.2118.1627.06
VLGPVRGPFPIL0.530.87−0.760.7043.1527.98
INHQGLSPEVPN0.070.05−0.44−0.1730.229.73
EPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.070.91−0.950.4242.4230.30
QEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.060.88−0.840.3141.6028.64
QEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.060.88−0.840.3141.6028.64
QEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.060.92−0.560.2242.1634.05
QEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.060.92−0.560.2242.1634.05
LYQEPVLGPVRGPFPI0.100.68−0.860.2941.4128.72
QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDM0.190.73−0.58−1.0245.0232.29
QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDM0.190.73−0.58−1.0245.0232.29
YQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.090.92−0.580.1542.0933.71
LSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQR0.490.08−0.18−0.8142.4047.45
LLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.180.61−0.620.7645.6147.43
QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMWR0.241.00−0.35−1.0148.0746.73
QGWGTFLREAGQGAKDMWR0.241.00−0.35−1.0148.0746.73
FLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.250.76−0.720.6747.0549.88
AMKPWTQPKTNAIPYVRYL0.380.980.350.5634.7933.59
PIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.190.65−0.540.3947.9063.06
MPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.040.46−0.590.3349.5463.82
DMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILN0.050.12−0.950.2845.1448.97
AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPI0.080.01−0.590.3042.3763.42
VVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPI0.080.01−0.440.3042.1863.75
AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.090.01−0.600.6545.5263.90
VPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILN0.070.03−0.660.6544.7763.89
AVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.090.01−0.600.6545.5263.90
RPKHPINHQGLSPEVLNENLLRFVVAPFPEVF0.050.200.06−0.8447.8965.47
RPKHPINHQGLSPEVLNENLLRFVVAPFPEVFR0.080.760.17−0.8447.5265.33
PVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILN0.070.01−0.380.3943.4364.09
LPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.070.01−0.420.3944.9664.07
VLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.080.01−0.280.3544.8264.07
VLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILN0.080.01−0.250.3244.9764.07
KVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.110.02−0.130.2946.5964.06
SLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.060.01−0.480.0945.5264.07
LSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.060.01−0.500.0746.5264.08
VLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.080.01−0.380.0546.2764.08
QSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPI0.050.01−0.46−0.2144.3764.08
SVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.070.01−0.430.0146.8064.08
QSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILN0.050.02−0.47−0.0145.8864.08
LVQSWMHQPPQPLSPTVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFL0.000.00−0.78−0.4943.4264.08
TVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKVVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPIL0.010.01−0.57−0.0844.9964.08
TVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.020.01−0.52−0.1045.5764.08
LSPTVMFPPQSVLSLSQPKVLPVPQKAVPQRDMPIQAFLLYQEPVLGPVRGPFPILV0.010.01−0.66−0.1345.4564.08

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matuozzo, M.; Spagnuolo, M.S.; Hussein, H.A.; Gomaa, A.M.; Scaloni, A.; D’Ambrosio, C. Novel Biomarkers of Mastitis in Goat Milk Revealed by MALDI-TOF-MS-Based Peptide Profiling. Biology 2020, 9, 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080193

AMA Style

Matuozzo M, Spagnuolo MS, Hussein HA, Gomaa AM, Scaloni A, D’Ambrosio C. Novel Biomarkers of Mastitis in Goat Milk Revealed by MALDI-TOF-MS-Based Peptide Profiling. Biology. 2020; 9(8):193. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080193

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matuozzo, Monica, Maria Stefania Spagnuolo, Hany A. Hussein, A. M. Gomaa, Andrea Scaloni, and Chiara D’Ambrosio. 2020. "Novel Biomarkers of Mastitis in Goat Milk Revealed by MALDI-TOF-MS-Based Peptide Profiling" Biology 9, no. 8: 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080193

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop