Collection of blood, saliva, and buccal cell samples in a pilot study on the Danish nurse cohort: Comparison of the response rate and quality of genomic DNA
Collection of blood, saliva, and buccal cell samples in a pilot study on the Danish nurse cohort: Comparison of the response rate and quality of genomic DNA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-0611
复制
发表时间：
2007-10-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Hundrup, Yrsa Andersen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hansen, Thomas V. O.;Simonsen, Mette K.;Hundrup, Yrsa Andersen
在这项研究中，我们比较了丹麦护士队列的初步研究中血液，唾液和口腔细胞样本的反应率，并检查了纯化的基因组DNA的数量和质量。我们的数据显示，只有31%的被要求的参与者提供了血液样本，而72%，80%和76%提供了唾液样本，口腔细胞样本通过口腔拭子，或口腔细胞样本的FTA卡，分别。通过NanoDrop和琼脂糖凝胶电泳分析纯化的基因组DNA显示，血液和唾液样品产生质量最好的DNA，而来自口腔细胞的DNA质量较低。基因型和PCR分析表明，100%的血液样本和72%至84%的唾液样本的DNA可以进行基因分型或扩增，而没有从FTA卡的DNA和只有23%的口腔拭子的DNA可以扩增，没有从拭子的DNA和94%的FTA卡的DNA可以进行基因分型。我们的研究显示，在我们的丹麦护士组中，自采唾液样本和口腔细胞样本的应答率远高于血液样本的应答率。然而，只有来自唾液样本的基因组DNA的质量与血液样本的纯度、基因分型和PCR扩增相当。我们的结论是，使用唾液样本是获得高质量基因组DNA的血液样本的良好替代方案，并且它将大大提高流行病学研究的响应率。
In this study, we compared the response rates of blood, saliva, and buccal cell samples in a pilot study on the Danish nurse cohort and examined the quantity and quality of the purified genomic DNA. Our data show that only 31% of the requested participants delivered a blood sample, whereas 72%, 80%, and 76% delivered a saliva sample, buccal cell sample via mouth swabs, or buccal cell sample on FTA card, respectively. Analysis of purified genomic DNA by NanoDrop and agarose gel electrophoresis revealed that blood and saliva samples resulted in DNA with the best quality, whereas the DNA quality from buccal cells was low. Genotype and PCR analysis showed that DNA from 100% of the blood samples and 72% to 84% of the saliva samples could be genotyped or amplified, whereas none of the DNA from FTA cards and only 23% of the DNA from mouth swabs could be amplified and none of the DNA from swabs and 94% of the DNA from FTA cards could be genotyped. Our study shows that the response rate of self-collection saliva samples and buccal cell samples were much higher than the response rate of blood samples in our group of Danish nurses. However, only the quality of genomic DNA from saliva samples was comparable with blood samples as accessed by purity, genotyping, and PCR amplification. We conclude that the use of saliva samples is a good alternative to blood samples to obtain genomic DNA of high quality and it will increase the response rate considerably in epidemiologic studies.