The impact of saliva collection methods on measured salivary biomarker levels.

Saliva diagnostics have become increasingly popular due to their non-invasive nature and patient-friendly collection process. Various collection methods are available, yet these are not always well standardized for either quantitative or qualitative analysis. In line, the objective of this study was to evaluate if measured levels of various biomarkers in the saliva of healthy individuals were affected by three distinct saliva collection methods: 1) unstimulated saliva, 2) chew stimulated saliva, and 3) oral rinse. Saliva samples from 30 healthy individuals were obtained by the three collection methods. Then, the levels of various salivary biomarkers such as proteins and ions were determined. It was found that levels of various biomarkers obtained from unstimulated saliva were comparable to those in chew stimulated saliva. The levels of potassium, sodium, and amylase activity differed significantly among the three collection methods. Levels of all biomarkers measured using the oral rinse method significantly differed from those obtained from unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva. In conclusion, both unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva provided comparable levels for a diverse group of biomarkers. However, the results obtained from the oral rinse method significantly differed from those of unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva, due to the diluted nature of the saliva extract.

A protocol for urine collection and storage prior to DNA methylation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Urine poses an attractive non-invasive means for obtaining liquid biopsies for oncological diagnostics. Especially molecular analysis on urinary DNA is a rapid growing field. However, optimal and practical storage conditions that result in preservation of urinary DNA, and in particular hypermethylated DNA (hmDNA), are yet to be determined. AIM: To determine the most optimal and practical conditions for urine storage that result in adequate preservation of DNA for hmDNA analysis. METHODS: DNA yield for use in methylation analysis was determined by quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP) targeting the ACTB and RASSF1A genes on bisulfite modified DNA. First, DNA yield (ACTB qMSP) was determined in a pilot study on urine samples of healthy volunteers using two preservatives (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and Urine Conditioning Buffer, Zymo Research) at four different temperatures (room temperature (RT), 4°C, -20°C, -80°C) for four time periods (1, 2, 7, 28 days). Next, hmDNA levels (RASSF1A qMSP) in stored urine samples of patients suffering from bladder cancer (n = 10) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 10) were measured at day 0 and 7 upon storage with and without the addition of 40mM EDTA and/or 20 µl/ml Penicillin Streptomycin (PenStrep) at RT and 4°C. RESULTS: In the pilot study, DNA for methylation analysis was only maintained at RT upon addition of preserving agents. In urine stored at 4°C for a period of 7 days or more, the addition of either preserving agent yielded a slightly better preservation of DNA. When urine was stored at -20 °C or -80 °C for up to 28 days, DNA was retained irrespective of the addition of preserving agents. In bladder cancer and NSCLC samples stored at RT loss of DNA was significantly less if EDTA was added compared to no preserving agents (p<0.001). Addition of PenStrep did not affect DNA preservation (p>0.99). Upon storage at 4°C, no difference in DNA preservation was found after the addition of preserving agents (p = 0.18). The preservation of methylated DNA (RASSF1A) was strongly correlated to that of unmethylated DNA (ACTB) in most cases, except when PCR values became inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of EDTA offers an inexpensive preserving agent for urine storage at RT up to seven days allowing for reliable hmDNA analysis. To avoid bacterial overgrowth PenStrep can be added without negatively affecting DNA preservation.

Clinical validation of the HPV-risk assay, a novel real-time PCR assay for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA by targeting the E7 region.

The HPV-Risk assay is a novel real-time PCR assay targeting the E7 region of 15 high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types (i.e., HPV16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -59, -66, -67, and -68), and provides additional genotype information for HPV16 and HPV18. This study evaluated the clinical performance and reproducibility of the HPV-Risk assay with cervical scraping specimens and its utility with self-collected (cervico)vaginal specimens. The clinical performance of the HPV-Risk assay for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) with cervical scraping specimens was evaluated by a noninferiority analysis, relative to high-risk HPV GP5+/6+ PCR, following international guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening. The HPV-Risk assay showed clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of 97.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.1 to 99.3%; 67/69 samples) and a clinical specificity for CIN2+ of 94.3% (95% CI, 92.5 to 95.7%; 777/824 samples). The clinical sensitivity and specificity were noninferior to those of GP5+/6+ PCR (noninferiority score test, P=0.006 and 0.0003, respectively). Intralaboratory reproducibility over time (99.5% [95% CI, 98.6 to 99.8%]; 544/547 samples, kappa=0.99) and interlaboratory agreement (99.2% [95% CI, 98.6 to 99.8%]; 527/531 samples, kappa=0.98) for the HPV-Risk assay with cervical scraping specimens were high. The agreement of the HPV-Risk assay results for self-collected (cervico)vaginal specimens and clinician-obtained cervical scraping specimens was also high, i.e., 95.9% (95% CI, 85.1 to 99.0%; 47/49 samples, kappa=0.90) for self-collected lavage samples and 91.6% (95% CI, 84.6 to 95.6%; 98/107 samples, kappa=0.82) for self-collected brush samples. In conclusion, the HPV-Risk assay meets the cross-sectional clinical and reproducibility criteria of the international guidelines for HPV test requirements and can be considered clinically validated for cervical screening purposes. The compatibility of the HPV-Risk assay with self-collected specimens supports its utility for HPV self-sampling.