Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28841690›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Different methods for volatile sampling in mammals.

Marlen Kücklich, Manfred Möller, Andrea Marcillo, Almuth Einspanier, Brigitte M Weiß, Claudia Birkemeyer, Anja Widdig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Scent Enriched Primate.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sexual Dimorphism in Crowned Lemur Scent-Marking.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Interdisciplinary challenges for elucidating human olfactory attractiveness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Marlen KücklichJunior Research Group of Primate Kin Selection, Department of Primatology, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7694-6474
Manfred MöllerInstitute and Out-patient Clinic of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Andrea MarcilloResearch Group of Mass Spectrometry, Institute of Analytical Chemistry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Almuth EinspanierInstitute of Physiological Chemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Brigitte M WeißJunior Research Group of Primate Kin Selection, Department of Primatology, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Claudia BirkemeyerInstitute and Out-patient Clinic of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Anja WiddigJunior Research Group of Primate Kin Selection, Department of Primatology, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig University · DEMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology · DERWTH Aachen University · DEGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies showed that olfactory cues are important for mammalian communication. However, many specific compounds that convey information between conspecifics are still unknown. To understand mechanisms and functions of olfactory cues, olfactory signals such as volatile compounds emitted from individuals need to be assessed. Sampling of animals with and without scent glands was typically conducted using cotton swabs rubbed over the skin or fur and analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). However, this method has various drawbacks, including a high level of contaminations. Thus, we adapted two methods of volatile sampling from other research fields and compared them to sampling with cotton swabs. To do so we assessed the body odor of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) using cotton swabs, thermal desorption (TD) tubes and, alternatively, a mobile GC-MS device containing a thermal desorption trap. Overall, TD tubes comprised most compounds (N = 113), with half of those compounds being volatile (N = 52). The mobile GC-MS captured the fewest compounds (N = 35), of which all were volatile. Cotton swabs contained an intermediate number of compounds (N = 55), but very few volatiles (N = 10). Almost all compounds found with the mobile GC-MS were also captured with TD tubes (94%). Hence, we recommend TD tubes for state of the art sampling of body odor of mammals or other vertebrates, particularly for field studies, as they can be easily transported, stored and analysed with high performance instruments in the lab. Nevertheless, cotton swabs capture compounds which still may contribute to the body odor, e.g. after bacterial fermentation, while profiles from mobile GC-MS include only the most abundant volatiles of the body odor.

Indexed as

Animal CommunicationAnimalsCallithrixFemaleGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryOdorantsVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID28841690
PMCPMC5571906
OpenAlexW2746639395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.