OBJECTIVE: To compare DNA yield from neonatal umbilical cord blood and buccal swab specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Umbilical cord blood was obtained at birth in a cohort of women enrolled in a preterm labor study. If cord blood was not obtained, neonatal buccal samples were obtained using the Oragene saliva kits. DNA was extracted from all samples using the QIAamp extraction kits. DNA concentration and yield were compared between umbilical cord blood and buccal swabs. RESULTS: DNA concentrations from umbilical cord blood (n = 35) was greater than that obtained from buccal swabs (n = 20) (total sample: 209.0 ± 110.7 ng/μL vs 6.9 ± 6.7 ng/μL respectively, P < .001; partial sample: n = 30 cord blood vs n = 11 buccal, 70.0 ± 51.4 ng/μL vs 11.3 ± 6.7 ng/μL, respectively, P < .001) and produced more total DNA (total sample: 116.5 ± 70.8 μg vs 4.2 ± 4.0 μg, P < .001; partial:14.0 ± 10.3 μg vs 1.1 ± 0.7 μg, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Buccal swabs yield less neonatal DNA than umbilical cord blood specimens.
OBJECTIVE: To compare DNA yield from neonatal umbilical cord blood and buccal swab specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Umbilical cord blood was obtained at birth in a cohort of women enrolled in a preterm labor study. If cord blood was not obtained, neonatal buccal samples were obtained using the Oragene saliva kits. DNA was extracted from all samples using the QIAamp extraction kits. DNA concentration and yield were compared between umbilical cord blood and buccal swabs. RESULTS: DNA concentrations from umbilical cord blood (n = 35) was greater than that obtained from buccal swabs (n = 20) (total sample: 209.0 ± 110.7 ng/μL vs 6.9 ± 6.7 ng/μL respectively, P < .001; partial sample: n = 30 cord blood vs n = 11 buccal, 70.0 ± 51.4 ng/μL vs 11.3 ± 6.7 ng/μL, respectively, P < .001) and produced more total DNA (total sample: 116.5 ± 70.8 μg vs 4.2 ± 4.0 μg, P < .001; partial:14.0 ± 10.3 μg vs 1.1 ± 0.7 μg, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Buccal swabs yield less neonatal DNA than umbilical cord blood specimens.
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: Andrew W Bergen; Kashif A Haque; Ying Qi; Michael B Beerman; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Nathaniel Rothman; Stephen J Chanock Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Sara M Beckett; Stephen J Laughton; Luciano Dalla Pozza; Geoffrey B McCowage; Glenn Marshall; Richard J Cohn; Elizabeth Milne; Lesley J Ashton Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Irena B King; Jessie Satia-Abouta; Mark D Thornquist; Jeannette Bigler; Ruth E Patterson; Alan R Kristal; Ann L Shattuck; John D Potter; Emily White; Jessie Satia Abouta Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dennis J Dlugos; Theresa M Scattergood; Thomas N Ferraro; Wade H Berrettinni; Russell J Buono Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Kashif A Haque; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Michael B Beerman; Jeff P Struewing; Stephen J Chanock; Andrew W Bergen Journal: BMC Biotechnol Date: 2003-10-28 Impact factor: 2.563
Authors: David M Haas; Amalia S Lehmann; Todd Skaar; Santosh Philips; Catherine L McCormick; Kyle Beagle; Scott J Hebbring; Jessica Dantzer; Lang Li; Jeesun Jung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elisha M Wachman; Marie J Hayes; Barry M Lester; Norma Terrin; Mark S Brown; David A Nielsen; Jonathan M Davis Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 4.406