ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020
Quantification of Defensive Proteins in Skin Mucus of
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparisons of Methods for Mucus Sampling and Mucin Semi-Quantification on Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) and Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Epithelial Sites.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- The skin mucosal barrier of lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus L.) is weakened by exposure to potential aquaculture production-related stressors.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Fish Skin and Gill Mucus: A Source of Metabolites for Non-Invasive Health Monitoring and Research.Metabolites · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Protocols used to collect fish skin mucus may inadvertently compromise the sampled fish or the resulting sample. Here, we used three methods (wiping, scraping, and absorption) to collect skin mucus from Atlantic salmon and compared their invasiveness on fish skin epithelium. We found that the absorption method was the least invasive. We also compared the abundance of antigen-specific immunoglobulin M subtype A antibodies (IgM-A Ab) and complement component 5 (C5) in mucus samples collected from vaccinated fish by the three methods. An enzyme-cascade-amplification strategy colorimetric immune assay was optimized and used to analyze IgM-A, and ELISA was used to analyze C5. The abundance of antigen-specific IgM-A in skin mucus was comparable between the three methods, but C5 was significantly lower in absorbed mucus in comparison to in the wiped or scraped mucus samples. Absorbed skin mucus samples collected from various body regions of salmon, levels of C5 were comparable, while specific IgM-A amounts varied between the regions. By comparing three mucus-absorbing materials (medical wipe, gauze, and cotton) for their ability to absorb and release IgM-A and C5, medical wipes proved to be ideal for IgM-A analysis, whereas gauze was the best for C5 analysis.
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.