Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38891749›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Welfare Assessment in Pigs Using the Salivary Proteome.

Sara Prims, Chris Van Ginneken, Xaveer Van Ostade, Christophe Casteleyn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sara PrimsComparative Perinatal Development, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6577-3563
Chris Van GinnekenComparative Perinatal Development, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1622-9120
Xaveer Van OstadeLaboratory of Protein Science, Proteomics and Epigenetic Signaling (PPES), Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4078-3014
Christophe CasteleynComparative Perinatal Development, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the potential presence of stress at the pig farm is fundamental since it affects pig welfare. As a result, a reliable and straightforward tool to monitor stress could record the welfare status of the animals. Although numerous methods to assess the welfare of pigs have been developed in the past, no gold standard has been established yet. Recently, the value of saliva as a tool to identify chronic stress in piglets was explored, as it can be collected fast and non-invasively. Since the protein composition, i.e., the proteome of porcine saliva, responds to stress, the affected proteins could be used as salivary stress biomarkers. The present review first defines stress and its relationship with welfare. Next, the porcine gland-specific salivary proteome is characterized. Finally, six potential salivary biomarkers for stress are proposed, i.e., odorant-binding protein, vomeromodulin-like protein, chitinase, lipocalin-1, long palate lung and nasal epithelium protein, and alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein.

Indexed as

biomarkershealth statuspigpigletproteomeproteomicssalivastresswelfare

Identifiers

PMID38891749
PMCPMC11171187

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.