Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41021131›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2025

Sequestration and the Extended Museum Specimen: Effects of Time and Preparation Methodology.

Megan E Zabinski, M Deane Bowers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Megan E ZabinskiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. Megan.Zabinski@colorado.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2502-8429
M Deane BowersDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Natural History, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5697-888X

Funding

National Science Foundation DEB-1929522University of Colorado Boulder Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Student Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Billions of specimens are housed in museum collections, but only a fraction are used in research after accession. The chemical composition of museum specimens, such as the presence of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs), is a useful component of the extended museum specimen concept. However, most of the work investigating chemistry of museum specimens has focused on herbarium specimens and not insects, of which some species may sequester and retain plant secondary metabolites. Also, the preparation techniques involved in entomological collections vary substantially and may influence the ability to detect sequestered compounds. The present work uses two Euphydryas butterfly species, E. phaeton and E. anicia (Nymphalidae), that sequester one group of plant secondary metabolites, iridoid glycosides, to ask two questions about the detection of sequestered compounds in museum specimens: (1) Can sequestered iridoid glycosides be detected in insect museum specimens and if so, how far back in time can we detect them? and (2) Do the preparation techniques used on insect specimens impact sequestered iridoid glycoside content? We detected sequestered compounds in insect museum specimens dating back to 1933. We also found that freshly collected specimens had significantly higher amounts of stored defenses compared to all other treatments. This work highlights the potential for use of museum specimens in chemical ecology and informs collections interested in adding chemical content to their extended museum specimen data.

Indexed as

ButterfliesIridoid GlycosidesMuseumsSpecimen HandlingAnimalsIridoid GlycosidesExtended museum specimenIridoid glycosidesMuseum collectionsSequestration

Identifiers

PMID41021131
PMCPMC12479603

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.