ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Are there phylogenetic differences in salivary tannin-binding proteins between browsers and grazers, and ruminants and hindgut fermenters?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiscale structural evolution of proline-rich protein genes shapes primate salivary defenses.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- The role of flower consumption in Howler Monkey Females' diet: adjustment across reproductive states.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Interspecific variation in gut microbiome diversity across the Etosha National Park herbivore community.PloS one · 2025Article
- Multi-omics analyses reveal rumen microbes and secondary metabolites that are unique to livestock species.mSystems · 2024Article
- The deterrent effects of individual monoterpene odours on the dietary decisions of African elephants.Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Herbivore-induced defenses are not under phylogenetic constraints in the genusEcology and evolution · 2021Article
- Nutritional Aspects of Ecologically Relevant Phytochemicals in Ruminant Production.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Megaherbivore browsers vs. tannins: is being big enough?Oecologia · 2020Article
- Are there phylogenetic differences in salivary tannin-binding proteins between browsers and grazers, and ruminants and hindgut fermenters?Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While feeding, mammalian browsers (primarily eat woody plants) encounter secondary metabolites such as tannins. Browsers may bind these tannins using salivary proteins, whereas mammalian grazers (primarily eat grasses that generally lack tannins) likely would not. Ruminant browsers rechew their food (ruminate) to increase the effectiveness of digestion, which may make them more effective at binding tannins than nonruminants. Few studies have included a sufficient number of species to consider possible scaling with body mass or phylogenetic effects on salivary proteins. Controlling for phylogeny, we ran inhibition radial diffusion assays of the saliva of 28 species of African herbivores that varied in size, feeding strategy, and digestive system. We could not detect the presence of salivary proline-rich proteins that bind tannins in any of these species. However, using the inhibition radial diffusion assay, we found considerable abilities to cope with tannins in all species, albeit to varying degrees. We found no differences between browsers and grazers in the effectiveness of their salivary proteins to bind to and precipitate tannins, nor between ruminants and nonruminants, or scaling with body mass. Three species bound all tannins, but their feeding niches included one browser (gray duiker), one mixed feeder (bush pig), and one grazer (red hartebeest). Five closely related species of small ruminant browsers were very effective in binding tannins. Megaherbivores, considered generalists on account of their large body size, were capable of binding tannins. However, the grazing white rhinoceros was almost as effective at binding tannins as the megaherbivore browsers. We conclude, contrary to earlier predictions, that there were no differences in the relative salivary tannin-binding capability that was related to common ancestry (phylogeny) or to differences in body size.
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.