ArticleOecologia2020
Megaherbivore browsers vs. tannins: is being big enough?
Article in Oecologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Induction of proline-rich proteins in response to tannin treatment in Caenorhabditis elegans.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The deterrent effects of individual monoterpene odours on the dietary decisions of African elephants.Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Nutritional influences on enzyme activities in saliva of Asian and African elephants.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Megaherbivores have been of particular interest to scientists because of the physiological and ecological challenges associated with their extreme body size. Yet, one question that has seldom been explored is how browsing megaherbivores cope with plant secondary metabolites (PSMs), such as tannins, found in their food. It is possible that the sheer body size of these megaherbivores allows them to ingest tannins with no deleterious effects. However, it is plausible that megaherbivores must rely on other mechanisms to cope with PSMs, such as the production of salivary tannin-binding proteins. Thus, we aimed to determine whether megaherbivore browsers produce tannin-binding proteins to further reduce the consequences of ingesting a tannin-rich diet. Using a series of laboratory assays, we explored whether elephants, black rhinoceros, and giraffe had tannin-binding proteins in their saliva. We tested for the presence of proline-rich proteins in the saliva using two different approaches: (1) SDS-PAGE using Laemmli's (Laemmli, Nature 227:680-685, 1970) destaining method, and (2) comparative SDS-PAGE gels using Beeley et al.'s (Beeley et al. Electrophoresis 12:493-499, 1991) method for staining and destaining to probe for proline-rich proteins. Then, to test for the tannin-binding affinity of their saliva, we performed an inhibition assay. We did not observe proline-rich proteins in any of the megaherbivore species, but they did have other protein(s) in their saliva that have a high tannin-binding affinity. Our results highlight that, despite their large body sizes, and their abilities to tolerate low-quality food, browsing megaherbivores have likely evolved tannin-binding proteins as a way of coping with the negative effects of tannins.
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.