English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Different methods for volatile sampling in mammals

Kücklich, M., Möller, M., Marcillo, A., Einspanier, A., Weiß, B. M., Birkemeyer, C., et al. (2017). Different methods for volatile sampling in mammals. PLoS One, 12(8): e0183440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183440.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
Kücklich_Different_PLoSOne_2017.pdf (Publisher version), 3MB
Name:
Kücklich_Different_PLoSOne_2017.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Gold
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
2017
Copyright Info:
© 2017 Kücklich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Kücklich, Marlen1, Author           
Möller, Manfred, Author
Marcillo, Andrea, Author
Einspanier, Almuth, Author
Weiß, Brigitte M.1, Author           
Birkemeyer, Claudia, Author
Widdig, Anja1, Author           
Affiliations:
1Junior Research Group of Primate Kin Selection, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Max Planck Society, ou_1497677              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: Previous studies showed that olfactory cues are important for mammalian communication. However, many specific compounds that convey information between conspecifics are still unknown. To understand mechanisms and functions of olfactory cues, olfactory signals such as volatile compounds emitted from individuals need to be assessed. Sampling of animals with and without scent glands was typically conducted using cotton swabs rubbed over the skin or fur and analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). However, this method has various drawbacks, including a high level of contaminations. Thus, we adapted two methods of volatile sampling from other research fields and compared them to sampling with cotton swabs. To do so we assessed the body odor of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) using cotton swabs, thermal desorption (TD) tubes and, alternatively, a mobile GC-MS device containing a thermal desorption trap. Overall, TD tubes comprised most compounds (N = 113), with half of those compounds being volatile (N = 52). The mobile GC-MS captured the fewest compounds (N = 35), of which all were volatile. Cotton swabs contained an intermediate number of compounds (N = 55), but very few volatiles (N = 10). Almost all compounds found with the mobile GC-MS were also captured with TD tubes (94%). Hence, we recommend TD tubes for state of the art sampling of body odor of mammals or other vertebrates, particularly for field studies, as they can be easily transported, stored and analysed with high performance instruments in the lab. Nevertheless, cotton swabs capture compounds which still may contribute to the body odor, e.g. after bacterial fermentation, while profiles from mobile GC-MS include only the most abundant volatiles of the body odor.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 20172017-08-25
 Publication Status: Published online
 Pages: 18
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183440
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: PLoS One
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 12 (8) Sequence Number: e0183440 Start / End Page: - Identifier: ISSN: 1932-6203
CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/1000000000277850