Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26052888›Full record

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.

J L Maron, K L Johnson

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Saliva MicroRNA Differentiates Children With Autism From Peers With Typical and Atypical Development.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2020
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J L Marona Mother Infant Research Institute at Tufts Medical Center, Division of Newborn Medicine , Boston , Massachusetts.
K L Johnsonb Tufts University School of Medicine , Boston , Massachusetts.
Tufts Medical Center · USTufts University · US

Funding

Neonatal Salivary Genomic Profiles To Access Feeding Tolerance and DiseaseK08HD059819 · NICHD · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARON, JILL LAMANNA · 2009 to 2013
$617k
NICHD NIH HHS K08 HD059819NICHD NIH HHS K08HD059819-05
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningNucleic AcidsReproducibility of ResultsRNASalivaSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, RNASpecimen HandlingNucleic AcidsRNADNA Genoteknewbornnucleic acidsQiagensaliva

Identifiers

PMID26052888
PMCPMC4766816
OpenAlexW2166411921

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.