ArticleScientific reports2026
Effect of sonication and protease inhibitors on Elisa quantification of selected proteins in bovine udder tissue homogenates.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
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
The protocols for preparing ELISA samples vary in terms of the use of mechanical homogenization (MH) alone or the additional use of protease inhibitors (PI) and/or sonication (S). It is unclear whether the type of protocol can affect the final protein yield; thus, we evaluated how different preparation methods and their combination affect the alpha-casein (CSN1), lactoferrin (LTF), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) concentrations in udder parenchyma using a sandwich ELISA, and tested whether the udder health state (coagulase-positive staphylococcal infection) affects the protocol efficacy. Samples from 22 cows (11 healthy, 11 infected) were processed using the four protocols. PI and S reduced protein concentrations, with the combination of MH + PI+S giving the lowest values for all three proteins. Unlike CSN1, ALP was the most sensitive to processing. CSN1 levels were higher in infected samples, while lactoferrin and ALP were not influenced by infection. All preparation methods affected the protein levels, irrespective of health state. The highest protein concentrations were obtained using MH alone. Our findings highlight the need for careful optimization and standardization of sample preparation to ensure reliable and reproducible ELISA results.
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.