Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36281295›Full record

ArticleACS measurement science au2022

Noninvasive Detection of Chemical Defenses in Poison Frogs Using the MasSpec Pen.

Anna C Krieger, Sydney C Povilaitis, Prajwal Gowda, Lauren A O'Connell, Livia S Eberlin

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ACS measurement science au, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "Touch&Play" Wood Typification by the MasSpec Pen.Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS · 2025
    Article
  2. Skin secretions of Leptodactylidae (Anura) and their potential applications.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna C KriegerDepartment of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Sydney C PovilaitisDepartment of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Prajwal GowdaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Lauren A O'ConnellDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States.
Livia S EberlinDepartment of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3885-3215
The University of Texas at Austin · USBaylor College of Medicine · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poison frogs are well-known for their fascinating ability to store alkaloids in their skin as chemical defense against predators. Chemical methods used to study these alkaloids are limited by requirements for euthanasia or stress during sampling. Here, we demonstrate sensitive and biocompatible alkaloid detection and monitoring

Identifiers

PMID36281295
PMCPMC9585640
OpenAlexW4292606941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.