Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31505485›Full record

ArticleJournal of breath research2019

How do cancer-sniffing dogs sort biological samples? Exploring case-control samples with non-targeted LC-Orbitrap, GC-MS, and immunochemistry methods.

Joachim D Pleil, M Ariel Geer Wallace, James McCord, Michael C Madden, Jon Sobus, Glenn Ferguson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breath research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Joachim D PleilUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, United States of America.
M Ariel Geer Wallace
James McCord
Michael C Madden
Jon Sobus
Glenn Ferguson

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early identification of disease onset is regarded as an important factor for successful medical intervention. However, cancer and other long-term latency diseases are rare and may take years to manifest clinically. As such, there are no gold standards with which to immediately validate proposed preclinical screening methodologies. There is evidence that dogs can sort samples reproducibly into yes/no categories based on case-control training, but the basis of their decisions is unknown. Because dogs are sniffing air, the distinguishing chemicals must be either in the gas-phase or attached to aerosols and/or airborne particles. Recent biomonitoring research has shown how to extract and analyze semi- and non-volatile compounds from human breath in exhaled condensates and aerosols. Further research has shown that exhaled aerosols can be directly collected on standard hospital-style olefin polypropylene masks and that these masks can be used as a simple sampling scheme for canine screening. In this article, detailed liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HR-MS) with Orbitrap instrumentation and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analyses were performed on two sets of masks sorted by consensus of a four-dog cohort as either cancer or control. Specifically, after sorting by the dogs, sample masks were cut into multiple sections and extracted for LC-MS and GC-MS non-targeted analyses. Extracts were also analyzed for human cytokines, confirming the presence of human aerosol content above levels in blank masks. In preliminary evaluations, 345 and 44 high quality chemical features were detected by LC-MS and GC-MS analyses, respectively. These features were used to develop provisional orthogonal projection to latent structures-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) models to determine if the samples classified as cancer (case) or non-cancer (control) by the dogs could be separated into the same groups using analytical instrumentation. While the OPLS-DA model for the LC-HR-MS data was able to separate the two groups with statistical significance, although weak explanatory power, the GC-MS model was not found to be significant. These results suggest that the dogs may rely on the less volatile compounds from breath aerosol that were analyzed by LC-HR-MS than the more volatile compounds observed by GC-MS to sort mask samples into groups. These results provide justification for more expansive studies in the future that aim to characterize specific chemical features, and the role(s) of these features in maintaining homeostatic biological processes.

Indexed as

AerosolsAnimalsBreath TestsCase-Control StudiesChromatography, LiquidCytokinesDiscriminant AnalysisDogsExhalationGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansImmunochemistryLeast-Squares AnalysisNeoplasmsAerosolsCytokines

Identifiers

PMID31505485
PMCPMC8649743

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.