4.6 Review

Current methods for stress marker detection in saliva

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113604

Keywords

Biomarker; Immunoassay; Mass spectrometry; Point of care device; Chromatography; Psychological stress

Funding

  1. State of Berlin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stress and stress-related diseases are leading to drastic consequences in private and professional life. Therefore, the need for stress prevention strategies is of personal and economic interest. Especially during the recent period related to covid-19 outbreak and lock-down, an ongoing discussion of increasing stress etiology is reported. Biomarker analysis may help to assist diagnosis and classification of stress-related diseases and therefore support therapeutical decisions. Due to its non-invasive sampling, the analysis of saliva has become highly attractive compared to the detection methods in other specimen. This review article summarizes the status of research, innovative approaches, and trends. Scientific literature published since 2011 was excerpted with concentration on the detection of up to seven promising marker substances. Most often reported cortisol represents the currently best evaluated stress marker, while norepinephrine (noradrenaline) or its metabolite 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol is also a quite commonly considered stress marker. Other complementary stress marker candidates are testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfonated analogue DHEA-S, alpha-amylase, secretory immunoglobulin A, and chromogranin A. Several working groups are researching in the field of stress marker detection to develop reliable, fast, and affordable methods. Analytical methods reported mainly focused on immunological and electrochemical as well as chromatographic methods hyphenated to mass spectrometric detection to yield the required detection limits. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available