Purpose: We have previously shown that a transcriptome is found in saliva and subpanels of these mRNAs can be used as oral cancer biomarkers. In this study, we measured the presence of microRNAs (miRNA) in saliva and determined their potential as an additional set of oral cancer biomarkers. Experimental Design: A total of 314 miRNAs were measured using reverse transcriptase-preamplification-quantitative PCR in 12 healthy controls. Degradation pattern of endogenous and exogenous saliva miRNAs were measured at room temperature over time. Selected miRNAs were validated in saliva of 50 oral squamous cell carcinoma patients and 50 healthy matched control subjects. Results: We detected ∼50 miRNAs in both the whole and supernatant saliva. Endogenous saliva miRNA degraded much slower compared with exogenous miRNA. Two miRNAs, miR-125a and miR-200a, were present in significantly lower levels (P < 0.05) in the saliva of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients than in control subjects. Conclusions: Both whole and supernatant saliva of healthy controls contained dozens of miRNAs, and similar to saliva mRNAs, these miRNAs are stable. Saliva miRNAs can be used for oral cancer detection. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5473-7)

Background:We have previously shown that human mRNAs are present in saliva and can be used as biomarkers of oral cancer. In this study, we analyzed the integrity, sources, and stability of salivary RNA. Methods: We measured the integrity of salivary RNA with reverse transcription followed by PCR (RT-PCR) or RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). To study RNA entry sites into the oral cavity, we used RT-PCR analysis of salivary RNA from the 3 major salivary glands, gingival crevice fluid, and desquamated oral epithelial cells. We measured stability of the salivary ␤-actin mRNA by RT-qPCR of salivary RNA incubated at room temperature for different periods of time. We measured RNA association with other macromolecules by filtering saliva through pores of different sizes before performing RT-qPCR. To assess RNA-macromolecule interaction, we incubated saliva with Triton X-100 for different periods of time before performing RT-qPCR. Results: In most cases, we detected partial-to fulllength salivary mRNAs and smaller amounts of middle and 3 gene amplicons compared with the 5. RNA was present in all oral fluids examined. Endogenous salivary ␤-actin mRNA degraded more slowly than exogenous ␤-actin mRNA, with half-lives of 12.2 and 0.4 min, respectively (P <0.001). Salivary RNA could not pass through 0.22 or 0.45 m pores. Incubation of saliva with Triton X-100 accelerated degradation of salivary RNA. Conclusions: Saliva harbors both full-length and partially degraded forms of mRNA. RNA enters the oral cavity from different sources, and association with macromolecules may protect salivary RNA from degradation.

Oral fluid (saliva) meets the demands for a noninvasive and accessible diagnostic medium. Recent reports by our group and others described the presence and use of human RNA in saliva as a diagnostic or forensic tool, including the use for oral cancer detection. To gain insights into the integrity of salivary RNA, we examined in detail the integrity of salivary RNA by generating a cDNA library from pooled supernatant saliva of 10 healthy donors. From a library with a primary library titer of 1.3 × 10 6 cfu/mL of which 95 % of the clones had inserts, we successfully sequenced 117 random colonies containing recombinant clones. BLAST search results indicated that all of these clones contained sequences of human origin. Most of the salivary RNAs appeared to be endonucleolytically cleaved at random positions as indicated by comparisons to respective full length parental RNAs from the Genbank. Twelve of the insert sequences matched to the normal salivary core transcriptome sequences, which are highly abundant mRNAs present in healthy individuals. This study provides an in-depth molecular analysis of the saliva transcriptome and should be a useful resource for future basic and translational studies of RNA in human saliva. In addition this paper presents unequivocal evidence for the presence of RNA in saliva as determined by the use of diverse techniques such as reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), in vitro translation, and the construction of a salivary cDNA library.

No abstract

Saliva, the most accessible and noninvasive biofluid of our body, harbors a wide spectrum of biological analytes informative for clinical diagnostic applications. While proteomic constituents are a logical first choice as salivary diagnostic analytes, genomic targets have emerged as highly informative and discriminatory. This awareness, coupled with the ability to harness genomic information by high-throughput technology platforms such as genome-wide microarrays, ideally positions salivary genomic targets for exploring the value of saliva for detection of specific disease states and augmenting the diagnostic and discriminatory value of the saliva proteome for clinical applications. Buccal cells and saliva have been used as sources of genomic DNA for a variety of clinical and forensic applications. For discovery of disease targets in saliva, the recent realization that there is a transcriptome in saliva presented an additional target for oral diagnostics. All healthy subjects evaluated have approximately 3,000 different mRNA molecules in their saliva. Almost 200 of these salivary mRNAs are present in all subjects. Exploration of the clinical utility of the salivary transcriptome in oral cancer subjects shows that four salivary mRNAs (OAZ, SAT, IL8, and IL1b) collectively have a discriminatory power of 91% sensitivity and specificity for oral cancer detection. Data are also now in place to validate the presence of unique diagnostic panels of salivary mRNAs in subjects with Sjögren's disease.

Termination of transcription by RNA polymerase II usually requires the presence of a functional poly(A) site. How the poly(A) site signals its presence to the polymerase is unknown. All models assume that the signal is generated after the poly(A) site has been extruded from the polymerase, but this has never been tested experimentally. It is also widely accepted that a "pause" element in the DNA stops the polymerase and that cleavage at the poly(A) site then signals termination. These ideas also have never been tested. The lack of any direct tests of the poly(A) signaling mechanism reflects a lack of success in reproducing the poly(A) signaling phenomenon in vitro. Here we describe a cell-free transcription elongation assay that faithfully recapitulates poly(A) signaling in a crude nuclear extract. The assay requires the use of citrate, an inhibitor of RNA polymerase II carboxyl-terminal domain phosphorylation. Using this assay we show the following. It has become clear in recent years that RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) not only transcribes the mRNA but shepherds it through the stages of processing as well (42, 67). An early indicator of this coupling between transcription and processing was the finding that the poly(A) signal for cleavage and polyadenylation of pre-mRNA directs not only 3Ј-end processing of the transcript but also termination of transcription by the polymerase (20,32,50,61,77,79). A major challenge has been to explain how the poly(A) signal communicates with the polymerase.The core poly(A) signal in vertebrates consists of two recognition elements flanking a cleavage-polyadenylation site (76,82). Typically, an almost invariant AAUAAA hexamer lies 20 to 50 nucleotides (nt) upstream of a more variable element rich in U or GU residues. Cleavage of the nascent transcript occurs between these two elements and is coupled to the addition of up to 250 adenosines to the 5Ј cleavage product. The cleavage is mediated in vitro by a large, multicomponent protein complex that can be separated into five distinguishable factors. Two of these factors are the cleavage and polyadenylation specificity factor (CPSF), which binds the AAUAAA motif, and the cleavage stimulation factor (CstF), which binds the downstream U-rich element. In vitro studies suggest that CPSF (26) and probably CstF as well (55, 71) are recruited to the polymerase at the promoter. Presumably they then ride with the polymerase during transcription, scanning the extruding transcript so as to snare the poly(A) site when it emerges. The situation in yeast may be similar (8,29). Strictly speaking, the term "poly(A) site" refers only to the point at which cleavage occurs and the poly(A) tail is appended, but we use the term here to refer to the poly(A) signal as a whole when this helps to distinguish between the poly(A) signal as an entity and poly(A) signal transduction [or "poly(A) signaling"] as a process.Models that attempt to explain transduction of the signal from the poly(A) site to the polymerase can be divided into two categories (50): (i) cl...

The carboxyl-terminal repeat domain (CTD) of RNA polymerase II is thought to help coordinate events during RNA metabolism. The mammalian CTD consists of 52 imperfectly repeated heptads followed by 10 additional residues at the C terminus. The CTD is required for cleavage and polyadenylation in vitro. We studied poly(A)-dependent termination in vivo using CTD truncation mutants. Poly(A)-dependent termination occurs in two steps, pause and release. We found that the CTD is required for release, the first 25 heptads being sufficient. Neither the final 10 amino acids nor the variant heptads of the second half of the CTD were required. No part of the CTD was required for poly(A)-dependent pausing-the poly(A) signal could communicate directly with the body of the polymerase. By removing the CTD, pausing could be observed without being obscured by release. Poly(A)-dependent pausing appeared to operate by slowing down the polymerase, such as by down-regulation of a positive elongation factor. Although the first 25 heptads supported undiminished poly(A)-dependent termination, they did not efficiently support events near the promoter involved in abortive elongation. However, the second half of the CTD, including the final 10 amino acids, was sufficient for these functions.

We mapped the elements that mediate termination of transcription downstream of the chicken betaH- and betaA-globin gene poly(A) sites. We found no unique element and no segment of 3'-flanking DNA to be significantly more effective than any other. When we replaced the native 3'-flanking DNA with bacterial DNA, it too supported transcription termination. Termination in the bacterial DNA depended on a functional poly(A) signal, which apparently compelled termination to occur in the downstream DNA with little regard for its sequence. We also studied premature termination by poorly processive polymerases close to the promoter. The rate of premature termination varied for different DNA sequences. However, the efficiencies of poly(A)-driven termination and promoter-proximal premature termination varied similarly on different DNAs, suggesting that poly(A)-driven termination functions by returning the transcription complex to a form which resembles a prior state of low processivity. The poly(A)-driven termination described here differs dramatically from the poly(A)-assisted termination previously described for the simian virus 40 (SV40) early transcription unit. In the SV40 early transcription unit, essentially no termination occurs downstream of the poly(A) site unless a special termination element is present. The difference between the betaH-globin and SV40 modes of termination is governed by sequences in the upstream DNA. For maximum efficiency, the betaH-globin poly(A) signal required the assistance of upstream enhancing sequences. Moreover, the SV40 early poly(A) signal also drove termination in betaH-globin style when it was placed in a betaH-globin sequence context. These studies were facilitated by a rapid, improved method of run-on transcription analysis, based on the use of a vector containing two G-free cassettes.