ArticleBiotechnic & histochemistry : official publication of the Biological Stain Commission2015
Comparative performance analyses of commercially available products for salivary collection and nucleic acid processing in the newborn.
Article in Biotechnic & histochemistry : official publication of the Biological Stain Commission, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for Necrotising Enterocolitis-Are We There Yet?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Characterization of non-invasive oropharyngeal samples and nucleic acid isolation for molecular diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Stabilization of swine faecal samples influences taxonomic and functional results in microbiome analyses.MethodsX · 2022Article
- Pre-analytical Practices in the Molecular Diagnostic Tests, A Concise Review.Iranian journal of pathology · 2021Review
- Saliva MicroRNA Differentiates Children With Autism From Peers With Typical and Atypical Development.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Analysis of saliva for clinical monitoring and biomarker detection holds great promise for improving health care. Commercially available assays are not intended for use with neonates, however, and collection and processing of saliva for subsequent transcriptomic analysis presents unique challenges in this population. We compared RNA yield, quality, stability and RT-qPCR performance for two commonly used commercial systems: the Qiagen RNeasy Protect Saliva Mini Kit(®) and the DNA Genotek Oragene•RNA(®) assay. Two 10 μl saliva samples were collected from ten newborns and stabilized for each assay. Total RNA was extracted following incubation for 3, 10, 15 or 20 days. Total RNA extracted from each assay was analyzed for integrity, quality and quantity using the Agilent BioAnalyzer 2100. RT-qPCR was performed for the reference gene, GAPDH, to assess subsequent performance of the extracted RNA. Although the DNA Genotek extraction protocol required nearly twice the time of the Qiagen protocol, RNA integrity did not differ between the kits. RNA concentration using the DNA Genotek assay, however, was 3,264 pg/μl (range: 262 - 10,336 pg/μl) compared to 822.4 pg/μl (range: 0 - 1,856 pg/μl) for the Qiagen protocol. Linear regression analysis showed a stronger correlation between the threshold cycle and RNA concentration using DNA Genotek (r(2) = 0.356) compared to Qiagen (r(2) = 0.0331). Our results suggest that although the Qiagen assay may reduce overall extraction time, RNA yield and performance in subsequent transcriptomic analysis is more robust using the DNA Genotek assay.
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.