Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25778408›Full record

ReviewClinical therapeutics2015

Not all biofluids are created equal: chewing over salivary diagnostics and the epigenome.

Michael E Wren, Elizabeth A Shirtcliff, Stacy S Drury

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical therapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The researcher's guide to selecting biomarkers in mental health studies.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Salivary Exosomes in Health and Disease: Future Prospects in the Eye.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael E WrenNeuroscience Graduate Program, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Elizabeth A ShirtcliffDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Stacy S DruryNeuroscience Graduate Program, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. Electronic address: sdrury@tulane.edu.
Tulane University · USIowa State University · US

Funding

Tulane Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH)K12HD043451 · NICHD · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI KROUSEL-WOOD, MARIE · 2002 to 2023
$9.9M
Transdisciplinary Research Consortium for Gulf Resilience on Women's HealthU19ES020677 · NIEHS · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI WICKLIFFE, JEFFREY KIRK · 2011 to 2015
$7.1M
Setting the trajectoryR01MH101533 · NIMH · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI DRURY, STACY SCHMIDT · 2013 to 2017
$2.7M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD043451NICHD NIH HHS K12HD043451NIEHS NIH HHS U19 ES020677NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101533NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101533-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis article describes progress to date in the characterization of the salivary epigenome and considers the importance of previous work in the salivary microbiome, proteome, endocrine analytes, genome, and transcriptome.

methodsPubMed and Web of Science were used to extensively search the existing literature (original research and reviews) related to salivary diagnostics and biomarker development, of which 125 studies were examined. This article was derived from the most relevant 74 sources highlighting the recent state of the evolving field of salivary epigenomics and contributing significantly to the foundational work in saliva-based research.

findingsValidation of any new saliva-based diagnostic or analyte will require comparison to previously accepted standards established in blood. Careful attention to the collection, processing, and analysis of salivary analytes is critical for the development and implementation of newer applications that include genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic markers. All these factors must be integrated into initial study design. IMPLICATIONS: This commentary highlights the appeal of the salivary epigenome for translational applications and its utility in future studies of development and the interface among environment, disease, and health.

Indexed as

DiagnosisMicrobiotaBiomarkersDNA MethylationEpigenomicsGene Expression ProfilingGenomeHumansMasticationMicroRNAsProteomeSalivaTelomereBiomarkersMicroRNAsProteomebiomarkerDNA methylationepigenomesalivary diagnosticssalivary transcriptometelomere length

Identifiers

PMID25778408
PMCPMC4390533
OpenAlexW2049746977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.