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

Authors

  • Nikki L. Rogers,

    Corresponding author
    1. Lifespan Health Research Center, Department of Community Health, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio 45420
    • Lifespan Health Research Center, Department of Community Health, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, 3171 Research Blvd., Dayton, OH 45420
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Shelley A. Cole,

    1. Department of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas 78245-0549
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hao-Chang Lan,

    1. Department of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas 78245-0549
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Aldo Crossa,

    1. Lifespan Health Research Center, Department of Community Health, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio 45420
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ellen W. Demerath

    1. Lifespan Health Research Center, Department of Community Health, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio 45420
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

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™ 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 μg, median = 181.88) than the other methods (oral rinse = 54.74 ± 41.72 μg, 36.56; swab = 11.44 ± 7.39 μg, 10.72; cytobrush = 12.66 ± 6.19, 13.22 μg) (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.Am. J. Hum. Biol. 19:319–326, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Ancillary