4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The effect of sampling procedures on the urate in oral fluid and lactate concentration in oral fluid

Journal

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages 255-262

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2017.02.032

Keywords

Oral fluid; Sampling procedures; Uric acid; Lactate; Flow rate; pH

Funding

  1. European Union [643694]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was aimed at evaluating the influence of sampling procedure on the determination of uric acid and lactate in oral fluid. Samples of non-stimulated and stimulated oral fluid were collected from 22 healthy volunteers. Different frequencies of stimulation were obtained by moving a polyester swab within the mouth at 50, 100 and 150 min(-1). Three oral fluid samples were consecutively collected from a subgroup of 5 volunteers at a constant stimulation (70 min(-1)) and at a self-selected pace to evaluate reproducibility. The urate concentration in oral fluid decreased with the increase of the stimulation and oral fluid flow rate (r = -0.98, p = 0.01). Also, the lactate concentration was much (p = 0.03, two tailed) lower in samples collected under a mild stimulation (50 min(-1)) than in samples collected without stimulation. Nevertheless, it progressively increased at higher stimulations (100 and 150 min(-1)). A transfer process mediated by membrane carriers (i.e. urate transporter and organic anion transporters) was hypothesized to explain these results. Finally, a reduced variability (relative standard deviation below 10%) of the urate concentration was obtained when oral fluid was sampled at constant stimulation (70 min(-1)), but it increased remarkably (20-50%) in case of sampling at self-selected pace. Nevertheless, expressing the salivary excretion of urate as a function of time (mu g min(-1)), the variability of sampling procedure at self-selected pace was lower than 15%. (C) 2017 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available