ReviewChemical senses2025
Common scents? A review of potentially shared chemical signals in the order Carnivora.
Review in Chemical senses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut Microbiota Is Linked to Female Olfactory Preference in Giant Pandas.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- From Rub Tree Prediction to Targeted Genetic Sampling in Brown Bears: Linking Scent-Marking Ecology and Spatial Modelling.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sex and Individual Specificity in Behavioral Responses to Chemical Communication and Urinary Volatile Components in Captive Forest Musk Deer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Many animals transmit information in the form of chemical signals to modify behavior or induce physiological change in receivers. For some taxa, such as species in the order Carnivora, chemical signals are known to provide a critical mode of communication, although they are still poorly understood compared to other signal modalities. Here, we review the literature to identify and categorize potential chemical signals within the Carnivora with a view to determining commonalities based on sex, taxon, and function. Data were drawn from 112 publications, dating from 1896 to 2021. Of the 1,532 discrete chemicals identified, 169 were detected in > 5 species, with 58 found in ≥ 10 species. However, multiple different names were often used to report the same compound, reducing the transparency of the literature. Two hundred and fifty-two chemicals were identified as biomarkers, i.e. associated with specific behavioral contexts (dominance hierarchy, appeasement, agonistic, etc.) or specific demographic traits (age, sex, etc.). Few studies established a causal link between these biomarkers and behavioral or physiological changes, so only a few could be definitively described as behaviorally functional bioactive signals. We found high variability concerning which species, chemicals, and sources were represented in the literature, which could potentially lead to a perceptual bias in the relative importance of certain chemicals. Finally, we propose a method for standardized reporting of chemical signals and suggest that future work should focus on a more consistent expansion of the range of species, products, and chemical types analyzed so that the phylogenetic relationship of chemical signals across taxa can be determined.
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.