Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation?
A prey immunomarking procedure (PIP) in combination with generic anti-rabbit and anti-chicken immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used frequently to study arthropod predation. This study was conducted to: (1) further standardize the PIP as a tool for predator gut a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands) Netherlands), 2018-12, Vol.63 (6), p.773-784 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 784 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 773 |
| container_title | BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands) |
| container_volume | 63 |
| creator | Hagler, James R. Casey, Miles T. Mansfield, Sarah |
| description | A prey immunomarking procedure (PIP) in combination with generic anti-rabbit and anti-chicken immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used frequently to study arthropod predation. This study was conducted to: (1) further standardize the PIP as a tool for predator gut analysis research, (2) investigate the most effective means for administering IgG marks to prey items, and (3) assess the possibility of the PIP yielding false positive reactions as a consequence of a predator obtaining a mark by incidental contact with, or by a failed predation attempt on, a protein-marked prey item. The pest
Lygus hesperus
Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae) was tagged with either an external rabbit IgG mark, an internal chicken IgG mark, or a double (external rabbit IgG and internal chicken IgG) mark treatment. Then, the variously marked prey items were fed to chewing and piercing-sucking type predators and their gut contents were examined for the presence of IgG remains. Data revealed that all three marking treatments were highly effective at tagging targeted prey. However, ELISA results showed that the prey items should only be marked internally to maximize the likelihood of detecting prey remains while minimizing the risk of obtaining false positive errors. The merits and limitations of using the generic PIP for predator gut analysis research are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2918241767</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2100938922</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-ad2f20fe9ebefbb880bdc949948e147722d318db08adbae6950b35e476dcf8ba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PAyEURYnRxFr9Ae5IXKPAwAy4Mcb4lTRx4ceWwMA01HYYgWrqr5c6Jq50xVvccx_vAHBM8CnBuDlLBHNaI0wEkhJzxHfAhPCmQoIysVvmStSoJozsg4OUFrgwnIsJeHnMurc6Wv-psw89DB0cottAv1qt-7DS8dX383Nog0tQwyEkn_27g9mlDPXyQ28S9L31rc5uC9rvlotDsNfpZXJHP-8UPN9cP13dodnD7f3V5Qy1FWMZaUs7ijsnnXGdMUJgY1vJpGTCEdY0lNqKCGuw0NZoV0uOTcUda2rbdsLoagpOxt4hhrd1-ZNahHXsy0pFJSm3k6Zu_k0Ve7ISktKSImOqjSGl6Do1RF8EbBTBaitZjZJVkay2khUvDB2ZVLL93MXf5r-hLyJHgCo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2100938922</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Hagler, James R. ; Casey, Miles T. ; Mansfield, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>Hagler, James R. ; Casey, Miles T. ; Mansfield, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>A prey immunomarking procedure (PIP) in combination with generic anti-rabbit and anti-chicken immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used frequently to study arthropod predation. This study was conducted to: (1) further standardize the PIP as a tool for predator gut analysis research, (2) investigate the most effective means for administering IgG marks to prey items, and (3) assess the possibility of the PIP yielding false positive reactions as a consequence of a predator obtaining a mark by incidental contact with, or by a failed predation attempt on, a protein-marked prey item. The pest
Lygus hesperus
Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae) was tagged with either an external rabbit IgG mark, an internal chicken IgG mark, or a double (external rabbit IgG and internal chicken IgG) mark treatment. Then, the variously marked prey items were fed to chewing and piercing-sucking type predators and their gut contents were examined for the presence of IgG remains. Data revealed that all three marking treatments were highly effective at tagging targeted prey. However, ELISA results showed that the prey items should only be marked internally to maximize the likelihood of detecting prey remains while minimizing the risk of obtaining false positive errors. The merits and limitations of using the generic PIP for predator gut analysis research are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-6141</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-8248</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Animal Biochemistry ; Animal Ecology ; Arthropods ; Behavioral Sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Chewing ; Chickens ; Content analysis ; Entomology ; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ; IgG antibody ; Immunoassays ; Immunoglobulin G ; Life Sciences ; Mastication ; Piercing ; Plant Pathology ; Predation ; Predators ; Prey ; Proteins ; Rabbits ; Risk reduction ; Standardization</subject><ispartof>BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2018-12, Vol.63 (6), p.773-784</ispartof><rights>This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018</rights><rights>BioControl is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><rights>This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-ad2f20fe9ebefbb880bdc949948e147722d318db08adbae6950b35e476dcf8ba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-ad2f20fe9ebefbb880bdc949948e147722d318db08adbae6950b35e476dcf8ba3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,41486,42555,51317</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hagler, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casey, Miles T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansfield, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation?</title><title>BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands)</title><addtitle>BioControl</addtitle><description>A prey immunomarking procedure (PIP) in combination with generic anti-rabbit and anti-chicken immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used frequently to study arthropod predation. This study was conducted to: (1) further standardize the PIP as a tool for predator gut analysis research, (2) investigate the most effective means for administering IgG marks to prey items, and (3) assess the possibility of the PIP yielding false positive reactions as a consequence of a predator obtaining a mark by incidental contact with, or by a failed predation attempt on, a protein-marked prey item. The pest
Lygus hesperus
Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae) was tagged with either an external rabbit IgG mark, an internal chicken IgG mark, or a double (external rabbit IgG and internal chicken IgG) mark treatment. Then, the variously marked prey items were fed to chewing and piercing-sucking type predators and their gut contents were examined for the presence of IgG remains. Data revealed that all three marking treatments were highly effective at tagging targeted prey. However, ELISA results showed that the prey items should only be marked internally to maximize the likelihood of detecting prey remains while minimizing the risk of obtaining false positive errors. The merits and limitations of using the generic PIP for predator gut analysis research are discussed.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal Biochemistry</subject><subject>Animal Ecology</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Chewing</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Entomology</subject><subject>Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay</subject><subject>IgG antibody</subject><subject>Immunoassays</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Mastication</subject><subject>Piercing</subject><subject>Plant Pathology</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Rabbits</subject><subject>Risk reduction</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><issn>1386-6141</issn><issn>1573-8248</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1PAyEURYnRxFr9Ae5IXKPAwAy4Mcb4lTRx4ceWwMA01HYYgWrqr5c6Jq50xVvccx_vAHBM8CnBuDlLBHNaI0wEkhJzxHfAhPCmQoIysVvmStSoJozsg4OUFrgwnIsJeHnMurc6Wv-psw89DB0cottAv1qt-7DS8dX383Nog0tQwyEkn_27g9mlDPXyQ28S9L31rc5uC9rvlotDsNfpZXJHP-8UPN9cP13dodnD7f3V5Qy1FWMZaUs7ijsnnXGdMUJgY1vJpGTCEdY0lNqKCGuw0NZoV0uOTcUda2rbdsLoagpOxt4hhrd1-ZNahHXsy0pFJSm3k6Zu_k0Ve7ISktKSImOqjSGl6Do1RF8EbBTBaitZjZJVkay2khUvDB2ZVLL93MXf5r-hLyJHgCo</recordid><startdate>20181215</startdate><enddate>20181215</enddate><creator>Hagler, James R.</creator><creator>Casey, Miles T.</creator><creator>Mansfield, Sarah</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181215</creationdate><title>Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation?</title><author>Hagler, James R. ; Casey, Miles T. ; Mansfield, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-ad2f20fe9ebefbb880bdc949948e147722d318db08adbae6950b35e476dcf8ba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal Biochemistry</topic><topic>Animal Ecology</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Chewing</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Entomology</topic><topic>Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay</topic><topic>IgG antibody</topic><topic>Immunoassays</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Mastication</topic><topic>Piercing</topic><topic>Plant Pathology</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Rabbits</topic><topic>Risk reduction</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hagler, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casey, Miles T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansfield, Sarah</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hagler, James R.</au><au>Casey, Miles T.</au><au>Mansfield, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation?</atitle><jtitle>BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands)</jtitle><stitle>BioControl</stitle><date>2018-12-15</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>773</spage><epage>784</epage><pages>773-784</pages><issn>1386-6141</issn><eissn>1573-8248</eissn><abstract>A prey immunomarking procedure (PIP) in combination with generic anti-rabbit and anti-chicken immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used frequently to study arthropod predation. This study was conducted to: (1) further standardize the PIP as a tool for predator gut analysis research, (2) investigate the most effective means for administering IgG marks to prey items, and (3) assess the possibility of the PIP yielding false positive reactions as a consequence of a predator obtaining a mark by incidental contact with, or by a failed predation attempt on, a protein-marked prey item. The pest
Lygus hesperus
Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae) was tagged with either an external rabbit IgG mark, an internal chicken IgG mark, or a double (external rabbit IgG and internal chicken IgG) mark treatment. Then, the variously marked prey items were fed to chewing and piercing-sucking type predators and their gut contents were examined for the presence of IgG remains. Data revealed that all three marking treatments were highly effective at tagging targeted prey. However, ELISA results showed that the prey items should only be marked internally to maximize the likelihood of detecting prey remains while minimizing the risk of obtaining false positive errors. The merits and limitations of using the generic PIP for predator gut analysis research are discussed.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1386-6141 |
| ispartof | BioControl (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2018-12, Vol.63 (6), p.773-784 |
| issn | 1386-6141 1573-8248 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2918241767 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Agriculture Animal Biochemistry Animal Ecology Arthropods Behavioral Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Chewing Chickens Content analysis Entomology Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay IgG antibody Immunoassays Immunoglobulin G Life Sciences Mastication Piercing Plant Pathology Predation Predators Prey Proteins Rabbits Risk reduction Standardization |
| title | Standardization of prey immunomarking: does a positive test always indicate predation? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T12%3A07%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Standardization%20of%20prey%20immunomarking:%20does%20a%20positive%20test%20always%20indicate%20predation?&rft.jtitle=BioControl%20(Dordrecht,%20Netherlands)&rft.au=Hagler,%20James%20R.&rft.date=2018-12-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=773&rft.epage=784&rft.pages=773-784&rft.issn=1386-6141&rft.eissn=1573-8248&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10526-018-9905-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2100938922%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2100938922&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |