4.2 Article

WOUND HEALING IN THE FLIGHT MEMBRANES OF BIG BROWN BATS

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 1148-1156

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-332.1

关键词

chiropatagium; Chiroptera; cutaneous tissue repair; Eptesicus fuscus; tail membrane; membrane punching; tissue biopsy; uropatagium; Vespertilionidae; wing membrane

类别

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  3. Ontario Innovation Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biologists routinely punch the flight membranes of bats to collect tissue for molecular analyses, or to mark animals in the field, or both. The Current standard is to biopsy the wing membrane (chiropatagium) because it is easy to access and is less vascularized, and thus bleeds less, than the tail membrane (uropatagium). Although flight membrane biopsies are assumed not to affect the bat's ability to fly or capture prey, almost nothing is known about wound healing times and the optimal punch size or location for tissue excision. We measured wound healing in the wing and tail membrane of 32 big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) biopsied with 2 circular punch tool sizes, and quantified the concentration of DNA extracted from the excised tissue. Our results show that tail wounds healed significantly faster than wing wounds for both 4-mm- and 8-mm-diameter biopsy wounds. We also were able to extract significantly more DNA from tail biopsies than from wing biopsies of the same size. The newly healed tissue remains unpigmented for considerable time after wound closure, and this allows identification of individuals for an extended period. We hypothesize that the increased vasculature in the uropatagium contributes to faster healing times compared to the chiropatagium. Examination of our data indicates that tissue biopsy for molecular analyses in bats should be taken from the tail membrane, although biopsies of the wing membrane are useful for marking associated with recapture programs because the wound and scar will persist longer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据