ArticleJournal of animal science2019
Comparison of 2 fixatives in the porcine colon for in situ microbiota studies.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Limited effects of short-term dietary L-glutamate supplementation on intestinal morphology of 100 g hybrid striped bass (Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Dietary L-glutamate modulates intestinal mucosal immunity of juvenile hybrid striped bass (Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- The avian influenza A virus receptor SA-α2,3-Gal is expressed in the porcine nasal mucosa sustaining the pig as a mixing vessel for new influenza viruses.Virus research · 2024Article
- Effect of chronic and acute enterotoxigenic E. coli challenge on growth performance, intestinal inflammation, microbiome, and metabolome of weaned piglets.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Analysis of the gut microbiome in dogs and cats.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.