Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25921796›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology2015

Digesta retention patterns of solute and different-sized particles in camelids compared with ruminants and other foregut fermenters.

Marie T Dittmann, Ullrich Runge, Sylvia Ortmann, Richard A Lang, Dario Moser, Cordula Galeffi, Angela Schwarm, Michael Kreuzer, Marcus Clauss

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Teeth and the gastrointestinal tract in mammals: when 1 + 1 = 3.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. The Ruminant sorting mechanism protects teeth from abrasives.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  5. No size-dependent net particle retention in the hindgut of horses.Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Preliminary evidence for a forestomach washing mechanism in llamas (Mammalian biology = Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde · 2021
    Article
  9. 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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Marie T DittmannClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty Zurich, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 260, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ullrich Runge
Sylvia Ortmann
Richard A Lang
Dario Moser
Cordula Galeffi
Angela Schwarm
Michael Kreuzer
Marcus Clauss
ETH Zurich · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHJohn Cochran VA Medical Center · USLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research · DEUniversity of Basel · CHZürich Zoological Garden · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mean retention times (MRT) of solute or particles in the gastrointestinal tract and the forestomach (FS) are crucial determinants of digestive physiology in herbivores. Besides ruminants, camelids are the only herbivores that have evolved rumination as an obligatory physiological process consisting of repeated mastication of large food particles, which requires a particle sorting mechanism in the FS. Differences between camelids and ruminants have hardly been investigated so far. In this study we measured MRTs of solute and differently sized particles (2, 10, and 20 mm) and the ratio of large-to-small particle MRT, i.e. the selectivity factors (SF(10/2mm), SF(20/2mm), SF(20/10mm)), in three camelid species: alpacas (Vicugna pacos), llamas (Llama glama), and Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus). The camelid data were compared with literature data from ruminants and non-ruminant foregut fermenters (NRFF). Camelids and ruminants both had higher SF(10/2mm)FS than NRFF, suggesting convergence in the function of the FS sorting mechanism in contrast to NRFF, in which such a sorting mechanism is absent. The SF(20/10mm)FS did not differ between ruminants and camelids, indicating that there is a particle size threshold of about 1 cm in both suborders above which particle retention is not increased. Camelids did not differ from ruminants in MRT(2mm)FS, MRTsoluteFS, and the ratio MRT(2mm)FS/MRTsoluteFS, but they were more similar to 'cattle-' than to 'moose-type' ruminants. Camelids had higher SF(10/2mm)FS and higher SF(20/2mm)FS than ruminants, indicating a potentially slower particle sorting in camelids than in ruminants, with larger particles being retained longer in relation to small particles.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceAnimalsCamelids, New WorldDigestionFermentationGastrointestinal ContentsGastrointestinal TransitHerbivoryModels, BiologicalParticle SizeRuminantsSpecies SpecificityStomachTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25921796
OpenAlexW1976904600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.