ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Void spot assay visualization optimization for use of Void Whizzard in rats (Rattus norvegicus).
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Void spot assay (VSA) noninvasively evaluates urination. VSA is often not performed in rats due to difficulty analyzing larger papers compared with mouse. This study optimizes VSA for rats by comparing post-assay visualization techniques: bright field light (BF), ultraviolet light (UV), and ninhydrin spray (N). Male rats were placed in cages lined by filter paper for 4 hours. Water and food was provided ad lib. After the assay all papers were dried overnight. BF images were photographed (digital camera). UV images were captured after cutting papers in half using a Darkroom ultraviolet imaging cabinet. Papers were sprayed with ninhydrin and photographed (digital camera). All images were converted to black and white for analysis with Void Whizzard. UV vs. BF showed significant differences in area. All three groups had significant differences in overall spot count and in the smallest sized spots (0-0.1 cm2). UV vs. N and UV vs. BF showed significant differences in 0.1-0.25 cm2 spots, UV vs. N in 0.25-0.5 cm2, and N vs. BF in spots 0.5-1 cm2. Overall BF visualization proved difficult. N provided an ideal way to highlight urine and image with a digital camera. Human fingerprints from pre-assay handling of paper interfered with analysis of the smallest sized spots however there were no differences in detection of larger spots, spot distribution, or overall spot area. This study contributes to the development of a standardized VSA protocol for assessing bladder function in both mouse and rat models.
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.