↓ Skip to main content

Influence of different sample preparation strategies on the proteomic identification of stress biomarkers in porcine saliva

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of different sample preparation strategies on the proteomic identification of stress biomarkers in porcine saliva
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1296-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Gutiérrez, José Joaquín Cerón, Ebrahim Razzazi-Fazeli, Sarah Schlosser, Fernando Tecles

Abstract

The influence of two different sample treatments comprising the enrichment of glycoproteins by boronic acid and dynamic range compression by hexapeptide libraries, on the detection of stress markers in saliva of pigs was evaluated in this study. For this purpose, saliva samples collected before and after the application of an acute stress model consisting of nasal restraining in pigs were processed without any treatment and with the two different treatments mentioned above. Protein separation by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) followed by identification of proteins using MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry (MS) was used as proteomic technique. The application of each of the two different sample treatment protocols allowed the identification of unique proteins that could be potential salivary acute stress markers in pigs: lipocalin 1, protein S100-A8 and immunoglobulin M by enrichment of glycoproteins; protein S100-A9, double headed protease inhibitor submandibular gland, and haemoglobin by dynamic range compression; and protein S100-A12 by both protocols. Salivary lipocalin, prolactin inducible protein, light chain of immunoglobulins, adenosine deaminase and carbonic anhydrase VI were identified as potential markers in untreated saliva as well as one of the other treatments. The use of different procedures allowed the detection of different potential stress markers. Although from a practical point of view, the use of saliva without further treatment as well as the enrichment of glycoproteins are less expensive and easy to do procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 15 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,931
of 3,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,005
of 439,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#75
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.