3.8 Article

Comparison of Biomarkers in Blood and Saliva in Healthy Adults

Journal

NURSING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Volume 2012, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2012/246178

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [P30 NR011403, R01 NR07652, R01 NR005182]
  2. VCU HHMI Science Education Project in Systems Biology
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [P30NR011403, R01NR007652, R01NR005182] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Researchers measure biomarkers as a reflection of patient health status or intervention outcomes. While blood is generally regarded as the best body fluid for evaluation of systemic processes, substitution of saliva samples for blood would be less invasive and more convenient. The concentration of specific biomarkers may differ between blood and saliva. The objective of this study was to compare multiple biomarkers (27 cytokines) in plasma samples, passive drool saliva samples, and filter paper saliva samples in 50 healthy adults. Demographic data and three samples were obtained from each subject: saliva collected on filter paper over 1 minute, saliva collected by passive drool over 30 seconds, and venous blood (3 mL) collected by venipuncture. Cytokines were assayed using Bio-Rad multiplex suspension array technology. Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations were used for data analysis. The sample was 52% male and 74% white. Mean age was 26 (range = 19-63 years, sd = 9.7). The most consistent and highest correlations were between the passive drool and filter paper saliva samples, although relationships were dependent on the specific biomarker. Correlations were not robust enough to support substitution of one collection method for another. There was little correlation between the plasma and passive drool saliva samples. Caution should be used in substituting saliva for blood, and relationships differ by biomarker.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available