ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2012
Comparison of different collection procedures and two methods for DNA isolation from saliva.
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Effectiveness of ddPCR for Detection of Point Mutations in Poor-Quality Saliva Samples.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- [A non-invasive method for detecting mitochondrial tRNANan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021Article
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Microbial biotechnology · 2021Article
- Salivary creatinine and urea are higher in an experimental model of acute but not chronic renal disease.PloS one · 2018Article
- Saliva DNA quality and genotyping efficiency in a predominantly elderly population.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- Organization, barrier function and antimicrobial lipids of the oral mucosa.International journal of cosmetic science · 2013Review
- Comparison of biological specimens and DNA collection methods for PCR amplification and microarray analysis.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe non-invasive, flexible and easy sample collection makes saliva an interesting source of DNA for research and diagnostic purposes. The aim of our study was to find the most suitable collection method for biological material from the oral cavity and the most effective DNA isolation technique for further analytic applications.
methodsDNA was isolated from swabs, Salivette saliva, whole saliva and samples collected with a commercial set for scraping of buccal cells. Phenol-chloroform extraction and isolation using a silica membrane based commercial kit were compared. Quantity of bacterial and human genomic DNA was estimated using real time PCR. The effects of storage conditions on DNA recovery were assessed.
resultsSample collection techniques significantly affected the quantity of DNA for both, silica membrane based and phenol-chloroform isolations. Whole saliva provided the largest number of bacterial and human genome copies after both extraction methods. Storage for 36 months at –20°C reduced recovery of human genomic DNA five times after silica membrane based extraction and 10 times after phenol-chloroform isolation.
conclusionsWhole saliva was found to be the most suitable material for human and bacterial DNA isolation. Both compared methods are useful considering the quantity of extracted DNA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.