ArticleBMC veterinary research2017
Influence of different sample preparation strategies on the proteomic identification of stress biomarkers in porcine saliva.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Animal Welfare-Friendly Noninvasive Oral Fluid in Swine Diagnostics: Current Applications in Disease Monitoring, Key Challenges and Future Directions.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Review
- Salivary Proteome Is Altered in Children With Small Area Thermal Burns.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2025Article
- Porcine salivary carbonic anhydrase VI is involved in the pathogenesis of disease.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Welfare Assessment in Pigs Using the Salivary Proteome.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Article
- MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry of saliva samples as a prognostic tool for COVID-19.Journal of oral microbiology · 2022Article
- Calibration of Novel Protein Biomarkers for Veterinary Clinical Pathology: A Call for International Action.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe influence of two different sample treatments comprising the enrichment of glycoproteins by boronic acid and dynamic range compression by hexapeptide libraries, on the detection of stress markers in saliva of pigs was evaluated in this study. For this purpose, saliva samples collected before and after the application of an acute stress model consisting of nasal restraining in pigs were processed without any treatment and with the two different treatments mentioned above. Protein separation by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) followed by identification of proteins using MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry (MS) was used as proteomic technique.
resultsThe application of each of the two different sample treatment protocols allowed the identification of unique proteins that could be potential salivary acute stress markers in pigs: lipocalin 1, protein S100-A8 and immunoglobulin M by enrichment of glycoproteins; protein S100-A9, double headed protease inhibitor submandibular gland, and haemoglobin by dynamic range compression; and protein S100-A12 by both protocols. Salivary lipocalin, prolactin inducible protein, light chain of immunoglobulins, adenosine deaminase and carbonic anhydrase VI were identified as potential markers in untreated saliva as well as one of the other treatments.
conclusionThe use of different procedures allowed the detection of different potential stress markers. Although from a practical point of view, the use of saliva without further treatment as well as the enrichment of glycoproteins are less expensive and easy to do procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.