ArticleScientific reports2025
Validating a remote saliva collection tool for genomic analyses in free ranging dogs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanistic Insights into Wildlife Cancer and Conservation Strategies Under the One Health Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Saliva is a well-established source of DNA for various applications due to its non-invasive collection and its provision of high-quality DNA. However, its use in wild and free-ranging animal research remains limited due to challenges in collection without direct animal handling. In this study, we developed and evaluated a hands-off saliva collection method designed for free-ranging domestic dogs (FRDs), serving as a model for non-invasive genetic sampling of wildlife. Our method utilized a funnel paired with a commercially available Performagene kit (DNA Genotek, Canada), presented to the dog in the presence of an operator. The dog was free to approach and interact with the apparatus, depositing saliva while trying to reach bait. We compared DNA yield and genotyping success from samples using this hands-off method with those collected via the manufacturer's recommended method. We collected 461 saliva samples from 326 FRDs, performing 750 DNA extractions. Samples collected by hand yielded significantly higher DNA concentrations after the first extraction attempt (mean = 46.3 ng/µL) than those collected using the hands-off method (mean = 32.2 ng/µL). Despite lower DNA concentrations, genotyping success did not significantly differ between methods, demonstrating that the hands-off method can yield DNA suitable for genomic analyses. The hands-off saliva collection method is a viable alternative to invasive sampling, addressing ethical concerns and enabling genomic studies in wild animals. Furthermore, our method mitigates sampling bias toward bold individuals, a common limitation in behavioral and genetic studies of free-ranging animals. With minor adaptations, this method could be applied across various species, including more elusive ones, contributing to conservation genetics and behavioral ecology research.
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.