Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758510›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2024

Untargeted Metabolomics Reveals Fruit Secondary Metabolites Alter Bat Nutrient Absorption.

Mariana Gelambi, Susan R Whitehead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Mariana GelambiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Latham Hall RM 427, 220 Ag Quad Lane, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. gelambi@vt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6443-5420
Susan R WhiteheadDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Latham Hall RM 427, 220 Ag Quad Lane, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 1856776Organization for Tropical Studies Glaxo Centroamerica Fellowships Fund 502/552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ecological interaction between fleshy fruits and frugivores is influenced by diverse mixtures of secondary metabolites that naturally occur in the fruit pulp. Although some fruit secondary metabolites have a primary role in defending the pulp against antagonistic frugivores, these metabolites also potentially affect mutualistic interactions. The physiological impact of these secondary metabolites on mutualistic frugivores remains largely unexplored. Using a mutualistic fruit bat (Carollia perspicillata), we showed that ingesting four secondary metabolites commonly found in plant tissues affects bat foraging behavior and induces changes in the fecal metabolome. Our behavioral trials showed that the metabolites tested typically deter bats. Our metabolomic surveys suggest that secondary metabolites alter, either by increasing or decreasing, the absorption of essential macronutrients. These behavioral and physiological effects vary based on the specific identity and concentration of the metabolite tested. Our results also suggest that a portion of the secondary metabolites consumed is excreted by the bat intact or slightly modified. By identifying key shifts in the fecal metabolome of a mutualistic frugivore caused by secondary metabolite consumption, this study improves our understanding of the effects of fruit chemistry on frugivore physiology.

Indexed as

ChiropteraFecesFruitMetabolomicsAnimalsFeeding BehaviorMetabolomeNutrientsSecondary MetabolismNutrientsCarolliaChemical EcologyDetoxificationFecal MetabolomeFrugivores

Identifiers

PMID38758510
PMCPMC11399193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.