Salivary cortisol in healthy dogs: a randomized cross-over study to evaluate different saliva stimulation methods and their effects on saliva volume and cortisol concentration.
Canine
Cortisol measurement
Cotton swab
Cushing’s syndrome
Ginger
LC-MS
Saliva
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 May 2021
17 May 2021
Historique:
received:
14
01
2021
accepted:
28
04
2021
entrez:
18
5
2021
pubmed:
19
5
2021
medline:
15
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Salivary cortisol collected at home is a useful test to diagnose and monitor Cushing's syndrome in humans. The main problem in dogs is to retrieve a sufficient amount of saliva. The aim of this study was to evaluate different salivary collection methods and compare their effects on volume, pH and cortisol concentration of saliva. Sixteen healthy Beagles were used in a 4 × 4 randomized crossover study with a washout period of 1 week between each of the following collection methods: 1. Salimetrics® cotton swab dipped in ginger powder (ginger group); 2. beef-flavored Salimetrics® (bouillon group); 3. Salivette® cotton swab with an enclosed treat (treat group); 4. plain Salimetrics® (control group). First, baseline saliva (plain cotton swab, S0) and, 2 min later, experimental saliva (according to group allocation above, SExp) were collected. Saliva was gathered by holding the swabs in the animal's mouth for 2 min. After the cross-over study, another saliva sample was collected from all dogs by the ginger method, using a 30 s sampling time (30s-ginger method). Cortisol concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. All three stimulation methods increased saliva production significantly (S0 compared to SExp: ginger p = 0.0005; bouillon p = 0.009; treat p = 0.007). Only ginger stimulation, however, generated a significantly higher amount of saliva (SExp) compared to the control group (p = 0.00001; median (range) amount of saliva for SExp: ginger 1200 ul (600-1700), bouillon 650 ul (200-1900), treat 700 ul (300-1000), control 400 ul (0-1100)). The amount of saliva retrieved by the 30s-ginger method was still higher than that from the control group (p = 0.0004). Bouillon and treat stimulation led to decreased pH values (bouillon, p = 0.0028; treat, 0.0018). Excitement was higher in the ginger group (p = 0.01). Chewing was intensified in the ginger and treat group (ginger, p = 0.003; treat, 0.0009). The cortisol concentration SExp was higher compared to that of S0 in the ginger and treat group (p = 0.02, 0.003). The experimental cortisol concentrations (SExp) were not different between groups. The 30s-ginger method could prove useful in evaluating or monitoring dogs with Cushing's syndrome, as sampling at home for 30 s by the owner seems feasible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Salivary cortisol collected at home is a useful test to diagnose and monitor Cushing's syndrome in humans. The main problem in dogs is to retrieve a sufficient amount of saliva. The aim of this study was to evaluate different salivary collection methods and compare their effects on volume, pH and cortisol concentration of saliva. Sixteen healthy Beagles were used in a 4 × 4 randomized crossover study with a washout period of 1 week between each of the following collection methods: 1. Salimetrics® cotton swab dipped in ginger powder (ginger group); 2. beef-flavored Salimetrics® (bouillon group); 3. Salivette® cotton swab with an enclosed treat (treat group); 4. plain Salimetrics® (control group). First, baseline saliva (plain cotton swab, S0) and, 2 min later, experimental saliva (according to group allocation above, SExp) were collected. Saliva was gathered by holding the swabs in the animal's mouth for 2 min. After the cross-over study, another saliva sample was collected from all dogs by the ginger method, using a 30 s sampling time (30s-ginger method). Cortisol concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All three stimulation methods increased saliva production significantly (S0 compared to SExp: ginger p = 0.0005; bouillon p = 0.009; treat p = 0.007). Only ginger stimulation, however, generated a significantly higher amount of saliva (SExp) compared to the control group (p = 0.00001; median (range) amount of saliva for SExp: ginger 1200 ul (600-1700), bouillon 650 ul (200-1900), treat 700 ul (300-1000), control 400 ul (0-1100)). The amount of saliva retrieved by the 30s-ginger method was still higher than that from the control group (p = 0.0004). Bouillon and treat stimulation led to decreased pH values (bouillon, p = 0.0028; treat, 0.0018). Excitement was higher in the ginger group (p = 0.01). Chewing was intensified in the ginger and treat group (ginger, p = 0.003; treat, 0.0009). The cortisol concentration SExp was higher compared to that of S0 in the ginger and treat group (p = 0.02, 0.003). The experimental cortisol concentrations (SExp) were not different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 30s-ginger method could prove useful in evaluating or monitoring dogs with Cushing's syndrome, as sampling at home for 30 s by the owner seems feasible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34001108
doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-02890-1
pii: 10.1186/s12917-021-02890-1
pmc: PMC8130098
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hydrocortisone
WI4X0X7BPJ
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
194Références
Physiol Behav. 2007 Nov 23;92(4):583-90
pubmed: 17572453
Pituitary. 2012 Mar;15(1):64-70
pubmed: 21833616
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 May;93(5):1526-40
pubmed: 18334580
Analyst. 2018 Feb 7;143(3):777-783
pubmed: 29333556
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016 Sep;162:27-40
pubmed: 27208627
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2010 Aug;121(3-5):505-12
pubmed: 20302937
Neonatology. 2014;105(4):312-8
pubmed: 24603497
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2020 Jul;72:106445
pubmed: 32247992
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2016 Oct;57:31-42
pubmed: 27315597
J Vet Intern Med. 2010 May-Jun;24(3):551-6
pubmed: 20384959
Res Vet Sci. 2003 Oct;75(2):157-61
pubmed: 12893165
Can J Vet Res. 2002 Jul;66(3):211-6
pubmed: 12146895
Clin Chem. 1992 Aug;38(8 Pt 1):1491-4
pubmed: 1643721
J Agric Food Chem. 2018 Jun 6;66(22):5621-5634
pubmed: 29787679
Dev Psychobiol. 2007 Jul;49(5):495-500
pubmed: 17577235
Horm Behav. 1996 Sep;30(3):272-9
pubmed: 8918684
Open Vet J. 2018;8(3):229-235
pubmed: 30057888
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005 Mar;17(2):139-44
pubmed: 15825494
Analyst. 2017 Dec 18;143(1):81-99
pubmed: 29149225
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Dec;93(12):4728-34
pubmed: 18728161
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1990;595:260-74
pubmed: 2375608
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2019 Jan;66:64-71
pubmed: 30472034
Ann Lab Med. 2020 Jul;40(4):285-296
pubmed: 32067427
Eur J Endocrinol. 2013 Jun 01;169(1):31-6
pubmed: 23610124
Horm Behav. 2009 Jan;55(1):163-8
pubmed: 18948108
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Aug 22;13(1):266
pubmed: 28830550
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun 1;105(6):
pubmed: 32133504
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2001 Feb;26(2):165-73
pubmed: 11087962
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2015 Jan;145:75-84
pubmed: 25312486
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Mar;97(3):890-6
pubmed: 22259060
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2020 Jul;72:106428
pubmed: 32213439
Child Dev. 1998 Dec;69(6):1503-13
pubmed: 9914636