ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Comparative evaluation of peptidome and microbiota in different types of saliva samples.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing links between dental fluorosis and oral/systemic health via salivary microbiome in Chinese young adults.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Filtration-enriched metabolites and their association with salivary microbiota: a combined two-cohort analysis.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
- Integrated salivary microbiome and metabolome profiling reveals ecological and functional alterations in severe early childhood caries.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- [Application of salivary micro-ecosystem in early prevention and control of oral and systemic diseases].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Review
- Deep Saliva Proteomics Elucidating the Pathogenesis of Early Childhood Caries and Identifying Biomarkers for Early Prediction.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Saliva assay: a call for methodological standardization.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2025Review
- Sampling strategies for digestive system flora studies: current research and perspectives.PeerJ · 2025Review
- The salivary microbiome as a diagnostic biomarker of periodontitis: a 16S multi-batch study before and after the removal of batch effects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical and research interest in salivary peptidome and microbiota is ever-growing owing to its great value for diagnosis, risk assessment and prediction of prognosis in oral and systemic diseases. Saliva can be stimulated for the purpose of rapid collection, but currently there are no studies systematically addressing the similarities and differences of salivary peptidome and microbiota in different types of samples. The purpose of this study was to investigate the variations of salivary peptidome and microbial profiles in response to different stimulating conditions.
methodsUnstimulated saliva and three types of stimulated saliva samples (olfaction, gustation, and mastication stimulated saliva) were collected from 10 systematically and orally healthy donors. The peptidome profiles were detected by weak cation exchange magnetic beads and analyzed through matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight-mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), while their microbial profiles were analyzed by 1
resultsBy comparisons of the overall salivary peptidome and microbial profiles, olfactory stimulation led to minimal variations comparing with that of unstimulated saliva, but appreciable variations were observed between saliva samples collected with gustatory/masticatory stimulation and unstimulated saliva. The three types of stimulated saliva exhibited significantly different peptidome and microbial profiles.
conclusionsStimulated saliva collected in response to olfactory stimulation is an appropriate alternative to unstimulated saliva, whereas gustatory/masticatory stimulation introduced appreciable variations. It is suggested that only one type of stimulating method should be used throughout one peptidome/microbiome research, which provides comprehensive insight into the optimization of sampling methods for salivaomic studies in the future.
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.