Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403355›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB

Human DNA extraction from whole saliva that was fresh or stored for 3, 6 or 12 months using five different protocols.

Thais Francini Garbieri, Daniel Thomas Brozoski, Thiago José Dionísio, Carlos Ferreira Santos, Lucimara Teixeira das Neves

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thais Francini GarbieriUniversidade de São Paulo, Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Daniel Thomas BrozoskiUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Thiago José DionísioUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Carlos Ferreira SantosUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Lucimara Teixeira das NevesUniversidade de São Paulo, Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Brasil · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE AND MATERIAL AND

methodsThis study aimed to compare the quantity and quality of human DNA extracted from saliva that was fresh or frozen for three, six and twelve months using five different DNA extraction protocols: protocol 1 - Oragene™ commercial kit, protocol 2 - QIAamp DNA mini kit, protocol 3 - DNA extraction using ammonium acetate, protocol 4 - Instagene™ Matrix and protocol 5 - Instagene™ Matrix diluted 1:1 using proteinase K and 1% SDS. Briefly, DNA was analyzed using spectrophotometry, electrophoresis and PCR.

resultsResults indicated that time spent in storage typically decreased the DNA quantity with the exception of protocol 1. The purity of DNA was generally not affected by storage times for the commercial based protocols, while the purity of the DNA samples extracted by the noncommercial protocols typically decreased when the saliva was stored longer. Only protocol 1 consistently extracted unfragmented DNA samples. In general, DNA samples extracted through protocols 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of storage time, were amplified by human specific primers whereas protocol 5 produced almost no samples that were able to be amplified by human specific primers. Depending on the protocol used, it was possible to extract DNA in high quantities and of good quality using whole saliva, and furthermore, for the purposes of DNA extraction, saliva can be reliably stored for relatively long time periods.

conclusionsIn summary, a complicated picture emerges when taking into account the extracted DNA's quantity, purity and quality; depending on a given researchers needs, one protocol's particular strengths and costs might be the deciding factor for its employment.

Indexed as

DNAElectrophoresisFemaleHumansMalePolymerase Chain ReactionQuality ControlReagent Kits, DiagnosticReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSalivaSpecimen HandlingSpectrophotometryStatistics, NonparametricTime FactorsDNAReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID28403355
PMCPMC5393535
OpenAlexW2605409201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.