ArticlePorcine health management2023
Analysing biomarkers in oral fluid from pigs: influence of collection strategy and age of the pig.
Article in Porcine health management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Animal Welfare-Friendly Noninvasive Oral Fluid in Swine Diagnostics: Current Applications in Disease Monitoring, Key Challenges and Future Directions.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Review
- Associations between health, productive performance and oral fluid biomarkers in commercial pig farms.Porcine health management · 2024Article
- Stress Biomarkers in Pigs: Current Insights and Clinical Application.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- Cystatin C, Ammonia, and Bicarbonate Measurements in the Saliva of Pigs: Analytical Validation and Changes inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Advances in Research on Pig Salivary Analytes: A Window to Reveal Pig Health and Physiological Status.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Saliva Sampling Material Matters: Effects on the Results of Saliva Analysis in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesOral fluid (OF) is an easy-to-collect, inexpensive, fast and non-invasive sample to characterize health and welfare status of the pig. However, further standardisation of the collection methods is needed in order to use it regularly in veterinary practice. Cotton ropes are routinely used to collect OF for pathogen detection but they may not be optimal for biomarker analysis due to sample contamination. This study compared two methods (cotton ropes and sponges) to collect porcine OF for biomarker analysis. A panel of 11 biomarkers of stress, inflammation, sepsis, immunity, redox status and general homeostasis was studied. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen farrow-to-finish pig farms were included in the study. In each farm, three (for sponges) or four pens of pigs (for ropes) were sampled at four age categories: the week after weaning (5 weeks), before (11-12 weeks) and after (12-13 weeks) moving to finisher facility and the week before slaughter (22-25 weeks). In total, 288 OF samples were collected with cotton ropes and 216 with sponges and analysed for the biomarkers: cortisol, alpha-amylase, oxytocin (stress), haptoglobin (inflammation), procalcitonin (sepsis), adenosine deaminase, immunoglobulin G (immune system), ferric reducing antioxidant power (redox status), and creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase and total protein (general homeostasis). Samples were also scored visually for dirtiness using a score from 1 (clean) to 5 (very dirty).
resultsRope-collected OF had higher levels of dirtiness (3.7 ± 0.04) compared to sponge-collected OF (2.7 ± 0.15) and had higher values than sponges for cortisol, procalcitonin, oxytocin, haptoglobin, total protein, lactate dehydrogenase and ferric reducing antioxidant power. All biomarkers decreased in value with age. Immunoglobulin G did not perform well for any of the two collection methods. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe results showed a clear effect of age on the biomarkers in OF collected with both, sponges or ropes. Sponges provided a cleaner sample than cotton ropes for biomarker analysis. Both methods are easy to apply under the commercial conditions in pig farms although sponges may take more time in early weaner stages. From a practical point of view, sampling with sponges achieved the best combination of reduced sampling time and low contamination.
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.