Conclusions
In this study, we concluded that protein extraction could be possible by both methods such as passive drooling method and through advanced saliva collection devices (Pure·SAL™ and RNAPro·SAL™).
Methods
A carefully designed sample collection/pretreatment protocol is crucial to the success of any saliva proteomics project. In this study, WMF was collected from healthy volunteers (n = 10, ages: 18-26 years). Individuals with any oral disease were excluded from the study group. In our study, we evaluated the following collection methods; the classical passive drooling method (unstimulated whole saliva) and standardized tools for saliva collection (Pure·SAL™, and RNAPro·SAL™) from Oasis Diagnostics® Corporation (Vancouver WA, USA). For estimation of protein levels, we used the bicinchoninic acid assay and protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher). The two-dimensional gel electrophoresis sample analysis was carried out for the estimation of proteins in one of the samples.
Objective
The aim of the current study was to carry out a preliminary validation of devices for standardized collection of whole mouth fluid (WMF) in comparison to the passive drooling method for protein analysis in healthy subjects. Materials and
Results
When gels were compared, the difference was seen in the resolution of spots. Protein spots were fading from high- to low-molecular weight masses. Hence, advanced devices in comparison to spitting method resulted in much clearer protein spots which in turn prove the validation of devices. Conclusions: In this study, we concluded that protein extraction could be possible by both methods such as passive drooling method and through advanced saliva collection devices (Pure·SAL™ and RNAPro·SAL™).