Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31845740›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Comparison of 2 fixatives in the porcine colon for in situ microbiota studies.

Anna K Blick, Paula R Giaretta, Sarah Sprayberry, Clara Bush-Vadala, Chad B Paulk, Justin Boeckman, Todd R Callaway, Jason J Gill, Raquel R Rech

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Analysis of the gut microbiome in dogs and cats.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2022
    Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna K BlickDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Paula R GiarettaDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Sarah SprayberryDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Clara Bush-VadalaCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Chad B PaulkDepartment of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Justin BoeckmanDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Todd R CallawayCollege of Agriculture, University of Georgia/USDA, Athens, GA.
Jason J GillDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Raquel R RechDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Texas A&M University · USKansas State University · USUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

Veterinary Student Research TrainingT35OD010991 · OD · TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH · PI GADDY, DANA · 2012 to 2025
$920k
NIH HHS T35 OD010991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fixation is the first step towards preservation of tissues and can impact downstream histological applications. Historically, formalin has been the fixative of choice in both research and clinical settings due to cost, accessibility, and broad applicability. Here, we describe a method for collection of porcine colon, and compare the usage of Carnoy's solution (CS) to a 10% neutral buffered formalin (NBF) in tissue fixation. Consecutive colon samples were collected from 24 four-wk-old piglets and fixed in CS for 45 min or NBF for 24 h. We measured the thickness of the inner mucus layer using Alcian Blue stain and found thicker inner mucus layers in porcine colons fixed with CS as compared to NBF (P < 0.0001). Carnoy's solution-fixed colon exhibited greater bacterial cell counts than NBF-fixed colon (P < 0.0022) after labeling with an eubacterial probe in fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). No difference was observed between the mucosal height (P = 0.42) and number of goblet cells (P = 0.66) between the 2 fixatives. From this, we concluded CS is more suitable than NBF for the preservation of the mucus layer and the associated mucosal bacteria in the porcine colon without compromising on overall tissue morphology. This study provides a useful sampling and fixation methodology for histology studies in the porcine gastrointestinal tract, and may be beneficial to microbiota, pathology, and nutrition studies.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAcetic AcidAnimalsCell CountChloroformColonEthanolFixativesGastrointestinal TractIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleSwineTissue FixationAcetic AcidCarnoy's solutionChloroformEthanolFixativesfluorescence in situ hybridizationgastrointestinal tracthistomorphometryintestinal mucosamucus layerswine

Identifiers

PMID31845740
PMCPMC6915214
OpenAlexW2996234388

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.