4.3 Article

New saliva DNA collection method compared to buccal cell collection techniques for epidemiological studies

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 319-326

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.20586

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [1 C06 RR13556-01, C06 RR013556] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL069995, HL69995] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD053685, R01 HD012252, HD12252, R01 HD053685-02] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK064391, DK64391, DK64870, R01 DK064870] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemiological studies may require noninvasive methods for off-site DNA collection. We compared the DNA yield and quality obtained using a whole-saliva collection device (Oragene (TM) DNA collection kit) to those from three established noninvasive methods (cytobrush, foam swab, and oral rinse). Each method was tested on 17 adult volunteers from our center, using a random crossover collection design and analyzed using repeated-measures statistics. DNA yield and quality were assessed via gel electrophoresis, spectophotometry, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification rate. The whole-saliva method provided a significantly greater DNA yield (mean +/- SD = 154.9 +/- 103.05 mu g, median = 181.88) than the other methods (oral rinse = 54.74 +/- 41.72 mu g, 36.56; swab = 11.44 +/- 7.39 mu g, 10.72; cytobrush 12.66 +/- 6.19, 13.22 mu g) (all pairwise P < 0.05). Oral-rinse and whole-saliva samples provided the best DNA quality, whereas cytobrush and swab samples provided poorer quality DNA, as shown by lower OD260/OD280 and OD260/OD230 ratios. We conclude that both a 10-ml oral-rinse sample and 2-ml whole-saliva sample provide sufficient DNA quantity and better quality DNA for genetic epidemiological studies than do the commonly used buccal swab and brush techniques.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available