FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Assessment of Salivary Biomarkers of Gastric Ulcer in Horses...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2025; 15(15); 2251; doi: 10.3390/ani15152251

Assessment of Salivary Biomarkers of Gastric Ulcer in Horses from a Clinical Perspective.

Abstract: This study arises from the search for non-invasive diagnostic alternatives for equine gastric ulceration (EGUS), which is prevalent, clinically variable and only confirmed by gastroscopy. The aim is to quantify five salivary biomarkers (IL1-F5, PIP, CA VI, serotransferrin, albumin) under clinical conditions by validated assays and analyse their diagnostic value. Horses were grouped in No EGUS (neither clinical signs of EGUS nor gastric lesions), EGUS non-clinical (apparently no clinical signs of EGUS but with gastric lesions), and EGUS clinical (obvious clinical signs of EGUS and with gastric lesions). The concentration of 5 analytes could be quantified using sandwich ELISA assays, with high precision (CV: 6.79-12.38%) and accuracy (>95%). Mean salivary levels of IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin and albumin were significantly higher in EGUS clinical horses compared to No EGUS horses, whereas PIP showed no statistical significance. EGUS non-clinical horses showed statistical differences with No EGUS horses for PIP and albumin. In addition, IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin and albumin showed moderate accuracy to distinguish between No EGUS and EGUS clinical horses (AUC ≥ 0.8), with sensitivity and specificity greater than 77% and 65%, respectively. Therefore, these biomarkers could be a promising starting point for screening horse that might have EGUS in practice.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-07-31 PubMed ID: 40805041PubMed Central: PMC12345524DOI: 10.3390/ani15152251Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article is about a study that uses salivary biomarkers to diagnose equine gastric ulceration (EGUS), a prevalent condition in horses that is usually diagnosed with an invasive procedure called gastroscopy.

Objective of the Research

  • This study seeks to find non-invasive methods of diagnosing Equine Gastric Ulceration (EGUS), a common yet often difficult to detect ailment in horses which has presently been confirmed only through an invasive procedure called gastroscopy.

Methodology

  • The researchers investigate five salivary biomarkers, namely IL1-F5, PIP, CA VI, serotransferrin, and albumin.
  • The saliva samples were derived from three groups of horses: those showing no signs of EGUS both clinically and on gastroscopy (No EGUS); those with gastric lesions indicative of EGUS but showing no clinical signs (EGUS non-clinical); and those displaying clinical signs of EGUS along with gastric lesions (EGUS clinical).
  • The concentration of these biomarkers was quantified through sandwich ELISA assays, a commonly used diagnostic tool due to its high precision and accuracy.

Results

  • The biomarkers IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin, and albumin were found to be significantly higher in the saliva of horses in the EGUS clinical group than those in the No EGUS group, indicating their potential to serve as indicators of the condition.
  • PIP, however, did not show a statistically significant difference in concentration between the groups.
  • In EGUS non-clinical horses, statistical differences with No EGUS horses were found for PIP and albumin, suggesting a potential use for these biomarkers in detecting non-clinical EGUS.
  • The accuracy of the biomarkers in distinguishing between the No EGUS group and the EGUS clinical group was found to be moderate, with a sensitivity (true positive rate) higher than 77% and a specificity (true negative rate) greater than 65%.

Conclusion

  • This study suggests that the biomarkers IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin, and albumin could be promising for the non-invasive screening of horses for EGUS in clinical practice – a significant improvement over the current invasive, gastroscopy-based procedure.

Cite This Article

APA
(2025). Assessment of Salivary Biomarkers of Gastric Ulcer in Horses from a Clinical Perspective. Animals (Basel), 15(15), 2251. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15152251

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 15
PII: 2251

Researcher Affiliations

Grant Funding

  • 34564 / BioZyme (United States)

Conflict of Interest Statement

I.R.I. receives consulting fees from Biozyme Incorporated. L.W. was employed by Biozyme Incorporated. These competing interests do not affect the integrity of the study. M.M.-Q. & A.M.G. are researchers who investigated biomarkers that are subject of patent. C.G.-P. declares no conflicts of interest. The results of this study are protected under US patent application USPTO 63/718,379, owned by Biozyme INC.

References

This article includes 34 references
  1. Sykes BW, Hewetson M, Hepburn RJ, Luthersson N, Tamzali Y. European College of Equine Internal Medicine Consensus Statement—Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome in Adult Horses. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2015;29:1288–1299.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.13578pmc: PMC4858038pubmed: 26340142google scholar: lookup
  2. van den Boom R. Equine gastric ulcer syndrome in adult horses. Vet. J. 2022;283–284:105830.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2022.105830pubmed: 35472513google scholar: lookup
  3. Lo Feudo CM, Stucchi L, Conturba B, Stancari G, Zucca E, Ferrucci F. Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome affects fitness parameters in poorly performing Standardbred racehorses. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022;9:1014619.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1014619pmc: PMC9732101pubmed: 36504861google scholar: lookup
  4. Nadeau JA, Andrews FM. Equine gastric ulcer syndrome: The continuing conundrum. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:611–615.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X468056pubmed: 19927575google scholar: lookup
  5. Sandin A, Skidell J, Häggström J, Girma K, Nilsson G. Post-mortem findings of gastric ulcers in Swedish horses up to one year of age: A retrospective study 1924–1996. Acta Vet. Scand. 1999;40:109–120.
    doi: 10.1186/BF03547028pmc: PMC8043222pubmed: 10605127google scholar: lookup
  6. Tamzali Y, Marguet C, Priymenko N, Lyazrhi F. Prevalence of gastric ulcer syndrome in high-level endurance horses. Equine Vet. J. 2011;43:141–144.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00129.xpubmed: 21592206google scholar: lookup
  7. Murray MJ. Gastroduodenal ulceration in foals. Equine Vet. Ed. 1999;11:199–207.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.1999.tb00948.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  8. Bell RJ, Kingston JK, Mogg TD, Perkins NR. The prevalence of gastric ulceration in racehorses in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 2007;55:13–18.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2007.36729pubmed: 17339911google scholar: lookup
  9. Shin YK, Lee HJ, Lee JS, Paik YK. Proteomic analysis of mammalian basic proteins by liquid-based two-dimensional column chromatography. Proteomics 2006;6:1143–1150.
    doi: 10.1002/pmic.200500433pubmed: 16404720google scholar: lookup
  10. Muñoz-Prieto A, Contreras-Aguilar MD, Cerón JJ, Ayala I, Martin-Cuervo M, Gonzalez-Sanchez JC, Jacobsen S, Kuleš J, Beletić A, Rubic I. Changes in Proteins in Saliva and Serum in Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome Using a Proteomic Approach. Animals 2022;12:1169.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12091169pmc: PMC9103582pubmed: 35565595google scholar: lookup
  11. López-Martínez MJ, Lamy E, Cerón JJ, Ayala I, Contreras-Aguilar MD, Henriksen IH, Muñoz-Prieto A, Hansen S. Changes in the saliva proteome analysed by gel-proteomics in horses diagnosed with equine gastric ulcer syndrome (EGUS) at diagnosis and after successful treatment. Res. Vet. Sci. 2024;167:105112.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2023.105112pubmed: 38176208google scholar: lookup
  12. Matas-Quintanilla M, Whitacre L, Ipharraguerre IR, Gutiérrez-Panizo C, Gutiérrez AM. Saliva and serum for screening gastric ulcer biomarkers in horses: A proteomic approach. Vet. J. 2025.
  13. Zweig MH, Robertson EA. Why we need better test evaluations. Clin. Chem. 1982;28:1272–1276.
    doi: 10.1093/clinchem/28.6.1272pubmed: 7074932google scholar: lookup
  14. Gardner IA, Greiner M. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios: Improvements over traditional methods for the evaluation and application of veterinary clinical pathology tests. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2006;35:8–17.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2006.tb00082.xpubmed: 16511785google scholar: lookup
  15. Lamy E, Mau M. Saliva proteomics as an emerging, non-invasive tool to study livestock physiology, nutrition and diseases. J. Proteom. 2012;75:4251–4258.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.05.007pubmed: 22583933google scholar: lookup
  16. Bilić P, Kuleš J, Galan A, Gomes de Pontes L, Guillemin N, Horvatić A, Festa Sabes A, Mrljak V, Eckersall PD. Proteomics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science: Neglected Scientific Opportunities with Immediate Impact. Proteomics 2018;18:e1800047.
    doi: 10.1002/pmic.201800047pubmed: 29952133google scholar: lookup
  17. Matas-Quintanilla M, Bonifa CAS, Whitacre L, Ipharraguerre IR, Gutiérrez AM. Assessing the inflammatory response in horses undergoing gastric ulceration using salivary ADA and S100A12 as biomarkers. Res. Vet. Sci. 2025;190:105667.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2025.105667pubmed: 40286638google scholar: lookup
  18. Sykes BW, Jokisalo JM. Rethinking equine gastric ulcer syndrome: Part 1—Terminology, clinical signs and diagnosis. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:543–547.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12236google scholar: lookup
  19. Armbruster DA, Pry T. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Clin. Biochemist. Rev. 2008;29((Suppl. S1)):S49–S52.
    pmc: PMC2556583pubmed: 18852857
  20. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological. Bull. 1992;112:155–159.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155pubmed: 19565683google scholar: lookup
  21. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988;240:1285–1293.
    doi: 10.1126/science.3287615pubmed: 3287615google scholar: lookup
  22. . FDA Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation, May 2018. .
  23. Canola PA, Salles RF, Daneze ER, Sobreira MFR, Oliveira BE, Favero ML, Antonioli ML. Iron-related markers of inflammation in horses with colic. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2024;134:105010.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2024.105010pubmed: 38286193google scholar: lookup
  24. Kaufman E, Lamster IB. The diagnostic applications of saliva—A review. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 2002;13:197–212.
    doi: 10.1177/154411130201300209pubmed: 12097361google scholar: lookup
  25. Hostovská L, Hostovský M, Nenadović K, Voslářová E, Večerek V. Effect of different types of exercise on salivary biochemical indices in the horse. Acta Vet. Brno. 2024;93:281–287.
    doi: 10.2754/avb202493030281google scholar: lookup
  26. Kang JH, Kho HS. Blood contamination in salivary diagnostics: Current methods and their limitations. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2019;57:1115–1124.
    doi: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0739pubmed: 30511922google scholar: lookup
  27. Hallquist NA, Klasing KC. Serotransferrin, ovotransferrin and metallothionein levels during an immune response in chickens. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1994;108:375–384.
    doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(94)90089-2pubmed: 7521729google scholar: lookup
  28. Parkkila S, Parkkila AK, Lehtola J, Reinilä A, Södervik HJ, Rannisto M, Rajaniemi H. Salivary carbonic anhydrase protects gastroesophageal mucosa from acid injury. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1997;42:1013–1019.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1018889120034pubmed: 9149056google scholar: lookup
  29. Onoufriadis A, Simpson MA, Pink AE, Di Meglio P, Smith CH, Pullabhatla V, Knight J, Spain SL, Nestle FO, Burden AD. Mutations in IL36RN/IL1F5 are associated with the severe episodic inflammatory skin disease known as generalized pustular psoriasis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2011;89:432–437.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.07.022pmc: PMC3169817pubmed: 21839423google scholar: lookup
  30. Gresnigt MS, van de Veerdonk FL. Biology of IL-36 cytokines and their role in disease. Semin. Immunol. 2013;25:458–465.
    doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2013.11.003pubmed: 24355486google scholar: lookup
  31. Tesena P, Yingchutrakul Y, Roytrakul S, Taylor J, Angkanaporn K, Wongtawan T. Searching for serum protein markers of equine squamous gastric disease using gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. Equine Vet. J. 2019;51:581–586.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13068pubmed: 30636330google scholar: lookup
  32. Sauer N, Matkowski I, Bodalska G, Murawski M, Dzięgiel P, Calik J. Prognostic Role of Prolactin-Induced Protein (PIP) in Breast Cancer. Cells 2023;12:2252.
    doi: 10.3390/cells12182252pmc: PMC10527336pubmed: 37759471google scholar: lookup
  33. Berrar D, Flach P. Caveats and pitfalls of ROC analysis in clinical microarray research (and how to avoid them). Brief. Bioinform. 2012;13:83–97.
    doi: 10.1093/bib/bbr008pubmed: 21422066google scholar: lookup
  34. Shawaf T, El-Deeb WM, Elgioushy M. The Contribution of Specific and Nonspecific Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome (EGUS) Under Field Condition. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020;84:102853.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.102853pubmed: 31864460google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,101 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.