We've updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data.

We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. You can read our Cookie Policy here.

Advertisement
Genotyping Performance Between Saliva and Blood-derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array
News

Genotyping Performance Between Saliva and Blood-derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array

Genotyping Performance Between Saliva and Blood-derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array
News

Genotyping Performance Between Saliva and Blood-derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array

Read time:
 

Want a FREE PDF version of This News Story?

Complete the form below and we will email you a PDF version of "Genotyping Performance Between Saliva and Blood-derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array"

First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Country*
Company Type*
Job Function*
Would you like to receive further email communication from Technology Networks?

Technology Networks Ltd. needs the contact information you provide to us to contact you about our products and services. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For information on how to unsubscribe, as well as our privacy practices and commitment to protecting your privacy, check out our Privacy Policy

Abstract
The Affymetrix Drug Metabolism Enzymes and Transporters (DMET) microarray is the first assay to offer a large representation of SNPs conferring genetic diversity across known pharmacokinetic markers. As a convenient and painless alternative to blood, saliva samples have been reported to work well for genotyping on the high density SNP arrays, but no reports to date have examined this application for saliva-derived DNA on the DMET platform. Genomic DNA extractions from saliva samples produced an ample quantity of genomic DNA for DMET arrays, however when human amplifiable DNA was measured, it was determined that a large percentage of this DNA was from bacteria or fungi. A mean of 37.3% human amplifiable DNA was determined for saliva-derived DNAs, which results in a significant decrease in the genotyping call rate (88.8%) when compared with blood-derived DNAs (99.1%). More interestingly, the percentage of human amplifiable DNA correlated with a higher genotyping call rate, and almost all samples with more than 31.3% human DNA produced a genotyping call rate of at least 96%. SNP genotyping results for saliva derived DNA (n = 39) illustrated a 98.7% concordance when compared with blood DNA. In conclusion, when compared with blood DNA and tested on the DMET array, saliva-derived DNA provided adequate genotyping quality with a significant lower number of SNP calls. Saliva-derived DNA does perform very well if it contains greater than 31.3% human amplifiable DNA.

This article is published online in PLoS One and is free to acess.

Advertisement