Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42426550›Full record

ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2026

Sample processing methods affect salivary metabolomics in human exercise-stress studies.

Staci Thornton, Michael R Szymanski, Gabrielle J Brewer, Douglas J Casa, Timothy E Moore, Shiying Xiao, Alexander A Green, Keith Pardee, Elaine C Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Staci ThorntonHuman Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, U-1110, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Michael R SzymanskiHuman Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, U-1110, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Gabrielle J BrewerHuman Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, U-1110, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Douglas J CasaDepartment of Kinesiology, Korey Stringer Institute, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Timothy E MooreStatistical Consulting Services. Center for Open Research Resources and Equipment (COR 2 E), University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Shiying XiaoStatistical Consulting Services. Center for Open Research Resources and Equipment (COR 2 E), University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Alexander A GreenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Keith PardeeLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3M2, Canada.
Elaine C LeeHuman Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, U-1110, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA. elaine.c.lee@uconn.edu.

Funding

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funding No. N66001-23-2-4042U.S. Department of Defense W81XWH-21-1-0558-P00001 and W81XWH-22-1-1112.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSaliva biomarker research requires understanding of how saliva collection and processing techniques affect results and reproducibility. Direct comparison of the effect of processing and storage conditions on downstream assay outcomes is important to understanding the ways that delay in freezing, methods of freezing, filtration protocols, and other factors can affect results and thus, interpretations about stress response and adaptation. This type of study compliments the work that is required to understand how saliva compares to tissue and blood responses and what the implications of changes in saliva biomarkers mean to our understanding of biomarkers of stress during exercise and environmental stress exposures.

objectiveIn this pilot study, we evaluated the effects of different processing methods on metabolomics results and discuss the implications of these findings for future experimental design.

methodsWe assessed the effects of centrifugation, time-of-day collection, filtration, and mucinase treatments and determined that there are quantifiable differences in metabolomics results with different treatments.

resultsAdding processing steps did not increase the number of metabolites detected or the sensitivity and specificity of results.

conclusionComprehensive descriptions of methods in this area will support better interpretation and reproducibility in this field.

Indexed as

ExerciseMetabolomicsSalivaSpecimen HandlingStress, PhysiologicalAdultBiomarkersFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersDifferential abundanceFiltrationHeat stressMetabolomicsMucinsSaliva

Identifiers

PMID42426550
PMCPMC13350125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.