4.6 Article

Effect of masticatory stimulation on the quantity and quality of saliva and the salivary metabolomic profile

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [25670828]
  2. Yamagata Prefectural Government
  3. city of Tsuruoka
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K11178, 25670828, 26462860] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study characterized the changes in quality and quantity of saliva, and changes in the salivary metabolomic profile, to understand the effects of masticatory stimulation. Methods Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples were collected from 55 subjects and salivary hydrophilic metabolites were comprehensively quantified using capillary electrophoresis-time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Results In total, 137 metabolites were identified and quantified. The concentrations of 44 metabolites in stimulated saliva were significantly higher than those in unstimulated saliva. Pathway analysis identified the upregulation of the urea cycle and synthesis and degradation pathways of glycine, serine, cysteine and threonine in stimulated saliva. A principal component analysis revealed that the effect of masticatory stimulation on salivary metabolomic profiles was less dependent on sample population sex, age, and smoking. The concentrations of only 1 metabolite in unstimulated saliva, and of 3 metabolites stimulated saliva, showed significant correlation with salivary secretion volume, indicating that the salivary metabolomic profile and salivary secretion volume were independent factors. Conclusions Masticatory stimulation affected not only salivary secretion volume, but also metabolite concentration patterns. A low correlation between the secretion volume and these patterns supports the conclusion that the salivary metabolomic profile may be a new indicator to characterize masticatory stimulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据