ArticlePloS one2016
A Comparison of Collection Techniques for Gene Expression Analysis of Human Oral Taste Tissue.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis of Salivary Epithelial Cells Reveals Large-Scale Dysregulation in Bitter Taste Dysfunction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Perception of Sour Taste in Subjects with Olfactory Deficits: Role of Myrtle Aromatization.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Temporal patterns in taste sensitivity.Nutrition reviews · 2024Review
- Assessment of Taste Function.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the efficiency of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs for recovery of DNA from metal surfaces.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2021Article
- Obesity is associated with altered gene expression in human tastebuds.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variability in human taste perception is associated with both genetic and environmental factors. The influence of taste receptor expression on this variability is unknown, in part, due to the difficulty in obtaining human oral tissue that enables quantitative expression measures of taste genes. In a comparison of six current techniques (Oragene RNeasy Kit, Isohelix swab, Livibrush cytobrush, tongue saliva, cheek saliva collection, and fungiform papillae biopsy), we identify the fungiform papillae biopsy is the optimal sampling technique to analyse human taste gene expression. The fungiform papillae biopsy resulted in the highest RNA integrity, enabling amplification of all the assessed taste receptor genes (TAS1R1, TAS1R2, TAS1R3, SCNN1A and CD36) and taste tissue marker genes (NCAM1, GNAT3 and PLCβ2). Furthermore, quantitative expression was observed in a subset of taste genes assessed from the saliva collection techniques (cheek saliva, tongue saliva and Oragene RNA kit). These saliva collection techniques may be useful as a non-invasive alternative sampling technique to the fungiform papillae biopsy. Identification of the fungiform papillae biopsy as the optimal collection method will facilitate further research into understanding the effect of gene expression on variability in human taste perception.
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.