Affiliations 

  • 1 University of Malaya
Ann Dent, 2012;19(2):62-65.
MyJurnal

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the
DNA yield and quality from different non-invasive
sampling methods and to identify the method which
gave the highest DNA yield. Method: Thirty-eight
volunteers had been recruited in this study where
blood, buccal cells and saliva were collected using
various collection techniques. Buccal cells were
collected by 1) cytobrush and 2) saline mouth rinsing
or “swish”. Meanwhile saliva was collected by passive
drooling method. Upon processing the white blood
cell (WBC), buccal cells and saliva samples, DNA
extraction was performed according to the
manufacturer’s protocol. Quantification and quality
(DNA ratio at A260/A280) of the extracted DNA were
determined using NanoDropND-1000®. T-test was
performed to compare means between DNA obtained
from various collection methods. Results: DNA yields
from buccal cells collected with cytobrush, “swish”,
saliva and WBC (mean ± SD) were (8.2 ± 5.9)ng/μl,
(28.2 ± 14.9)ng/μl, (5.9 ± 9.5)ng/μl and (105.3 ±
75.0)ng/μl respectively. Meanwhile the mean DNA
ratio at A260/A280 for cytobrush, “swish”, saliva and
WBC were 2.3, 2.0, 1.7 and 1.8 respectively. Post hoc
test with Bonferroni correction suggested that DNA
yield from “swish” technique exhibited the least mean
different as compared to the DNA extracted from WBC
(p