ArticleScientific reports2024
Characterization of non-invasive oropharyngeal samples and nucleic acid isolation for molecular diagnostics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probing the proteome.eLife · 2026Article
- Exploring the presence of the GPR126 single nucleotide polymorphism (rs536714306) in periodontal patients of European ancestry.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Recent advancements in artificial intelligence-powered cancer prediction from oral microbiome.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Review
- Development of RPA-Cas12a assay for rapid and sensitive detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii.BMC 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular diagnostics is an increasingly important clinical tool, especially in routine sampling. We evaluated two non-invasive methods (oral swabs and mouthwashes) for sampling nucleic acids from the oral/pharyngeal area. We created a workflow from sample collection (n = 59) to RT-qPCR based analysis. The samples were further characterized in terms of their cellular composition as well as the purity, degradation and microbial content of the derived DNA/RNA. We determined the optimal housekeeping genes applicable for these types of samples. The cellular composition indicated that mouthwashes contained more immune cells and bacteria. Even though the protocol was not specifically optimized to extract bacterial RNA it was possible to derive microbial RNA, from both sampling methods. Optimizing the protocol allowed us to generate stable quantities of DNA/RNA. DNA/RNA purity parameters were not significantly different between the two sampling methods. Even though integrity analysis demonstrated a high level of degradation of RNA, corresponding parameters confirmed their sequencing potential. RT-qPCR analysis determined TATA-Box Binding Protein as the most favorable housekeeping gene. In summary, we have developed a robust method suitable for multiple downstream diagnostic techniques. This protocol can be used as a foundation for further research endeavors focusing on developing molecular diagnostics for the oropharyngeal cavity.
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.