Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24586655›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A pilot study exploring the use of breath analysis to differentiate healthy cattle from cattle experimentally infected with Mycobacterium bovis.

Christine K Ellis, Randal S Stahl, Pauline Nol, W Ray Waters, Mitchell V Palmer, Jack C Rhyan, Kurt C VerCauteren, Matthew McCollum, M D Salman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Detection ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Volatile Cues Influence Host-Choice in Arthropod Pests.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christine K EllisAnimal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America ; United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Randal S StahlUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Pauline NolUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Wildlife Livestock Disease Investigations Team, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
W Ray WatersUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Mitchell V PalmerUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Jack C RhyanUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Wildlife Livestock Disease Investigations Team, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Kurt C VerCauterenUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Matthew McCollumUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Wildlife Livestock Disease Investigations Team, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
M D SalmanAnimal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis, caused by Mycobacterium bovis, is a zoonotic disease of international public health importance. Ante-mortem surveillance is essential for control; however, current surveillance tests are hampered by limitations affecting ease of use or quality of results. There is an emerging interest in human and veterinary medicine in diagnosing disease via identification of volatile organic compounds produced by pathogens and host-pathogen interactions. The objective of this pilot study was to explore application of existing human breath collection and analysis methodologies to cattle as a means to identify M. bovis infection through detection of unique volatile organic compounds or changes in the volatile organic compound profiles present in breath. Breath samples from 23 male Holstein calves (7 non-infected and 16 M. bovis-infected) were collected onto commercially available sorbent cartridges using a mask system at 90 days post-inoculation with M. bovis. Samples were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and chromatographic data were analyzed using standard analytical chemical and metabolomic analyses, principle components analysis, and a linear discriminant algorithm. The findings provide proof of concept that breath-derived volatile organic compound analysis can be used to differentiate between healthy and M. bovis-infected cattle.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreath TestsCattleHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansMaleMycobacterium bovisPilot ProjectsTuberculosis, BovineZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID24586655
PMCPMC3933422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.