AIM: Traditionally, large scale genotyping projects have used DNA derived from whole-blood or lymphoblast cell lines. But over the past several years, a number of investigators have begun to use DNA prepared from saliva for genotyping studies, particularly for use in behavioral genetic studies. However, the comparability of DNA from these two sources has not been rigorously analyzed by unbiased sources. OBJECTIVE: In this communication, we compare the single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping results from DNA derived from whole-blood samples obtained from 474 participants from the Iowa Adoption Studies with that of saliva samples prepared from 555 members of the Strong African-American Families project. RESULTS: We found that DNA prepared from whole-blood performed significantly better than that prepared from saliva. Genotyping success was significantly associated with the concentration of human DNA in the saliva sample as determined by quantitative PCR, but not with the total amount of DNA as determined by UV spectroscopy. CONCLUSION: We conclude that investigators contemplating the choice of source materials of DNA for genotyping studies will need to balance the ease and economy of saliva-based DNA collection methods with the higher yields and rates of genotyping calls associated with DNA prepared from whole-blood.
AIM: Traditionally, large scale genotyping projects have used DNA derived from whole-blood or lymphoblast cell lines. But over the past several years, a number of investigators have begun to use DNA prepared from saliva for genotyping studies, particularly for use in behavioral genetic studies. However, the comparability of DNA from these two sources has not been rigorously analyzed by unbiased sources. OBJECTIVE: In this communication, we compare the single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping results from DNA derived from whole-blood samples obtained from 474 participants from the Iowa Adoption Studies with that of saliva samples prepared from 555 members of the Strong African-American Families project. RESULTS: We found that DNA prepared from whole-blood performed significantly better than that prepared from saliva. Genotyping success was significantly associated with the concentration of human DNA in the saliva sample as determined by quantitative PCR, but not with the total amount of DNA as determined by UV spectroscopy. CONCLUSION: We conclude that investigators contemplating the choice of source materials of DNA for genotyping studies will need to balance the ease and economy of saliva-based DNA collection methods with the higher yields and rates of genotyping calls associated with DNA prepared from whole-blood.
Authors: Karen Steinberg; Jeanne Beck; Deborah Nickerson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Margaret Gallagher; Michele Caggana; Yvonne Reid; Mark Cosentino; Jay Ji; Delene Johnson; Richard B Hayes; Marie Earley; Fred Lorey; Harry Hannon; Muin J Khoury; Eric Sampson Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Gene H Brody; Velma McBride Murry; Meg Gerrard; Frederick X Gibbons; Virginia Molgaard; Lily McNair; Anita C Brown; Thomas A Wills; Richard L Spoth; Zupei Luo; Yi-Fu Chen; Eileen Neubaum-Carlan Journal: Child Dev Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: M García-Closas; K M Egan; J Abruzzo; P A Newcomb; L Titus-Ernstoff; T Franklin; P K Bender; J C Beck; L Le Marchand; A Lum; M Alavanja; R B Hayes; J Rutter; K Buetow; L A Brinton; N Rothman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Whitney E Melroy-Greif; Csaba Vadasz; Helen M Kamens; Matthew B McQueen; Robin P Corley; Michael C Stallings; Christian J Hopfer; Kenneth S Krauter; Sandra A Brown; John K Hewitt; Marissa A Ehringer Journal: Alcohol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.405
Authors: Frederick X Gibbons; Megan E Roberts; Meg Gerrard; Zhigang Li; Steven R H Beach; Ronald L Simons; Chih-Yuan Weng; Robert A Philibert Journal: Dev Psychol Date: 2012-01-16
Authors: Gene H Brody; Steven R H Beach; Robert A Philibert; Yi-Fu Chen; Man-Kit Lei; Velma McBride Murry; Anita C Brown Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2009-02
Authors: Linda Koshy; A L Anju; S Harikrishnan; V R Kutty; V T Jissa; Irin Kurikesu; Parvathy Jayachandran; A Jayakumaran Nair; A Gangaprasad; G M Nair; P R Sudhakaran Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Gene H Brody; Steven R H Beach; Yi-Fu Chen; Ezemenari Obasi; Robert A Philibert; Steven M Kogan; Ronald L Simons Journal: Dev Psychopathol Date: 2011-05
Authors: Alicia K Smith; Varun Kilaru; Torsten Klengel; Kristina B Mercer; Bekh Bradley; Karen N Conneely; Kerry J Ressler; Elisabeth B Binder Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Ana P Nunes; Isabel O Oliveira; Betânia R Santos; Cristini Millech; Liziane P Silva; David A González; Pedro C Hallal; Ana M B Menezes; Cora L Araújo; Fernando C Barros Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Yueshan Hu; Erik A Ehli; Kelly Nelson; Krista Bohlen; Christophina Lynch; Patty Huizenga; Julie Kittlelsrud; Timothy J Soundy; Gareth E Davies Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240