4.4 Article

Saliva chromogranin A in growing pigs: A study of circadian patterns during daytime and stability under different storage conditions

期刊

VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 199, 期 3, 页码 355-359

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.01.005

关键词

Circadian pattern; Chromogranin A; Salivary proteins; Stability; Pigs

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Education [AGL2009-08509]
  2. University of Murcia [R-549/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salivary chromogranin A (CgA) is considered to be a biomarker of activation of the sympatho-adrenomedullary system, and has recently been proposed as a useful indicator of the acute stress response in pigs. The aim of the present study was to determinate whether salivary CgA concentrations in healthy growing pigs exhibits any circadian pattern during the daytime, and to evaluate its stability under different storage conditions. A total of 80 pigs (40 in spring and another 40 in autumn) of two different ages and genders were used. To establish the circadian pattern, saliva samples were collected at 07.00, 11.00, 15.00 and 19.00 h on two consecutive days. Pooled samples were used for the stability study and were measured on the day of sampling and periodically for up to 360 days later. Samples were stored at 4 degrees C, -20 degrees C or -80 degrees C and the effect of repeated freezing and thawing was also evaluated. No circadian pattern was detected for salivary CgA in either season and there were no significant effects of gender or age. However, mean salivary CgA concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in the pigs sampled in autumn, compared to those sampled in the spring. Short term storage at 4 degrees C is recommended for up to 2 days, whereas frozen samples can be stored for I year at -20 degrees C or -80 degrees C, without substantial reduction in CgA values. In addition, samples can be frozen and thawed up to seven times without significant loss of the biomarker. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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