Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pediatric High-Grade Gliomas and Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Retrospective Study.

HGG advances·2026
Same author

Cellular Metabolic Signatures of Long COVID-19.

Infectious disease reports·2026
Same author

A report of thirteen non-conventional FLCN-mutated (renal) tumors (FMT) and a discussion of proposed diagnostic criteria, convergent FLCN/TFEB and FLCN/MITF E318K signaling, and FLCN immunohistochemistry.

Human pathology·2026
Same author

Metabolic alterations in Snyder-Robinson syndrome lymphoblasts are ameliorated by phenylbutyrate treatment.

Molecular genetics and metabolism·2026
Same author

Case Report: The revelation of a new pathogenic variant in the POT1 gene in a patient with a pediatric high-grade glioma and a renal cell carcinoma.

Frontiers in oncology·2026
Same author

RNA-Based and DNA-Based Next-Generation Sequencing of KIT and PDGFRA Mutations in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Analytical Performance and Epidemiologic Insights.

Translational oncology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 26, 2025

Collection and Extraction of Saliva DNA for Next Generation Sequencing
06:58

Collection and Extraction of Saliva DNA for Next Generation Sequencing

Published on: August 27, 2014

39.3K

Evaluating User Experience and DNA Yield from Self-Collection Devices.

Joseph H Blommel1,2, Matthew M Roforth1, Calvin R Jerde1

  • 1Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
|May 20, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Users prefer direct saliva collection devices over swabs for self-collection of biospecimens. This finding aids in selecting optimal devices for DNA, RNA, and microbial sample collection and clinical testing.

More Related Videos

Exploring the Root Microbiome: Extracting Bacterial Community Data from the Soil, Rhizosphere, and Root Endosphere
09:55

Exploring the Root Microbiome: Extracting Bacterial Community Data from the Soil, Rhizosphere, and Root Endosphere

Published on: May 2, 2018

26.8K
Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Risk and Prevalence by Stool DNA Integrity Detection
07:35

Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Risk and Prevalence by Stool DNA Integrity Detection

Published on: June 8, 2020

6.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 26, 2025

Collection and Extraction of Saliva DNA for Next Generation Sequencing
06:58

Collection and Extraction of Saliva DNA for Next Generation Sequencing

Published on: August 27, 2014

39.3K
Exploring the Root Microbiome: Extracting Bacterial Community Data from the Soil, Rhizosphere, and Root Endosphere
09:55

Exploring the Root Microbiome: Extracting Bacterial Community Data from the Soil, Rhizosphere, and Root Endosphere

Published on: May 2, 2018

26.8K
Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Risk and Prevalence by Stool DNA Integrity Detection
07:35

Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Risk and Prevalence by Stool DNA Integrity Detection

Published on: June 8, 2020

6.9K

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Clinical Diagnostics
  • Molecular Biology

Background:

  • The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for effective biospecimen self-collection devices.
  • Mail-in kits offer convenience but may introduce patient sampling variability.
  • User compliance is crucial for accurate downstream testing of biospecimens.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate oral DNA collection devices for self-collection.
  • To compare user experience, DNA recovery, and sample stability.
  • To guide the selection of devices for various sample types and clinical applications.

Main Methods:

  • Evaluated 10 oral DNA collection devices (swab and saliva).
  • Assessed ease of use, comfort, DNA quantity/quality, and sample stability.
  • Analyzed user preferences between direct saliva and swab-based collection.

Main Results:

  • DNA quality and quantity metrics were comparable across devices.
  • Users reported a preference for direct saliva collection over swab-based devices.
  • Device usability and user comfort varied, influencing preference.

Conclusions:

  • Direct saliva collection devices are preferred by users for oral DNA self-collection.
  • Findings inform the selection of devices for future research involving RNA, microbial, or viral samples.
  • This study supports the use of preferred devices in clinical testing settings.