Effect of saliva collection method on the concentration of protein components in saliva

Abstract

In order to clarify how we collect saliva for analyzing salivary protein in aged subjects who can not eat well, we compared the effects of suction, spitting and the swab saliva collection method on the yield of protein components in saliva samples from normal volunteers. The saliva collected by suction, spitting and the swab method were designated as, Saliva I, II and III, respectively. The saliva volume collected by Saliva I was about 2-fold greater than that by of Saliva II and III. This is mainly due to the fact that saliva secretion was stimulated by the suction itself. The content of total protein, S-IgA, trypsin-like activity and human airway trypsin-like protease (HAT) were almost the same in Saliva I and II, and significantly lower in Saliva III than in Saliva I and II. Kallikrein activity was almost the same in Saliva I, II and III. The concentration of each total protein, S-IgA, kallikrein activity, trypsin activity and HAT in Saliva I were significantly positively correlated with that in Saliva II. These results indicate that we can obtain information of change of salivary protein by analyzing saliva collected by suction method, although this method caused the stimulation of saliva to some extent.

Saliva as a diagnostic fluid in sports medicine: potential and limitations

“…Furthermore, saliva and analyte recovery may vary considerably in each method, mainly owing to the fact that some analytes may adhere to the cotton, causing false lower values (14,22,37) .…”

The Effects of Prosthetic Treatment on Oral Candidiasis

“…Resting salivary flow was measured by the spitting method [22,23], which involved collecting saliva spit into paper cups over a 15-min period and measuring the content. A result of <1.5 mL/15 min was considered as low resting salivary flow.…”

Comparison of Salivary IgA Secretion Rate Collected by the Aspiration Method and Swab Method

“…Unstimulated, slightly stimulated, and stimulated saliva is collected using the spitting, aspiration, and swab methods, respectively. Michishige et al demonstrated that, among the 3 saliva collection methods, the spitting and aspiration methods showed a significant positive correlation of salivary IgA concentrations [32]. The association between salivary IgA and URTI risk has been exhibited not only through salivary IgA concentrations but also through salivary IgA secretion rate [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].…”

“…Correlation was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.). Michishige et al reported that the salivary IgA concentration was significantly correlated in samples collected by the aspiration and spitting methods [32]. Correlation between the salivary secretion rate in samples collected by aspiration and spitting methods is expected, since unstimulated and slightly stimulated saliva are collected using these methods.…”

“…These show that the aspiration method can be a highly effective method for saliva sample collection. Michishige et al recommended using the aspiration method for saliva collection because some elderly people cannot spit well [32]. Moreover, Jones et al reported that 69% of elderly people preferred the aspiration method to the spitting method [33].…”