ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2022
Snap-freezing in the Field: Effect of Sample Holding Time on Performance of Bactericidal Assays.
Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diverse hosts, diverse immune systems: Evolutionary variation in bat immunology.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- The Promise of a Pointillist Perspective for Comparative Immunology.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative analyses in biology rely on the quality of available data. Methodological differences among studies may introduce variation in results that obscure patterns. In the field of eco-immunology, functional immune assays such as antimicrobial capacity assays are widely used for among-species applications. Sample storage time and animal handling time can influence assay results in some species, but how sample holding time prior to freezing influences assay results is unknown. Sample holding time can vary widely in field studies on wild animals, prompting the need to understand the implications of such variation on assay results. We investigated the hypothesis that sample holding time prior to freezing influences assay results in six species (Leiocephalus carinatus, Iguana iguana, Loxodonta africana, Ceratotherium simum, Columba livia, and Buteo swainsoni) by comparing antibacterial capacity of serum with varying processing times prior to snap-freezing. Blood was collected once from each individual and aliquots were placed on ice and assigned different holding times (0, 30, 60, 180, and 240 min), after which each sample was centrifuged, then serum was separated and snap-frozen on dry ice and stored at -80ºC for 60 days prior to assaying. For each aliquot, we conducted antibacterial capacity assays with serial dilutions of serum inoculated with E. coli and extracted the dilution at 50% antibacterial capacity for analysis. We found a decrease in antibacterial capacity with increased holding time in one of the six species tested (B. swainsoni), driven in part by complete loss of antibacterial capacity in some individuals at the 240-min time point. While the majority of species' antibacterial capacity were not affected, our results demonstrate the need to conduct pilot assays spanning the anticipated variation in sample holding times to develop appropriate field protocols.
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.