↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Minimally-Invasive Sample Collection Methods for Measurement of Telomere Length

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of Minimally-Invasive Sample Collection Methods for Measurement of Telomere Length
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie A. Stout, Jue Lin, Natalie Hernandez, Elysia P. Davis, Elizabeth Blackburn, Judith E. Carroll, Laura M. Glynn

Abstract

Objective: The discovery of telomere length (TL) as a biomarker of cellular aging and correlate of age-related disease has generated a new field of research in the biology of healthy aging. Although the most common method of sample collection for TL is venous blood draw, less-invasive DNA collection methods are becoming more widely used. However, how TL relates across tissues derived from these sample collection methods is poorly understood. The current study is the first to characterize the associations in TL across three sample collection methods: venous whole blood, finger prick dried blood spot and saliva. Methods: TL was measured in 24 healthy young adults using three modes of sample collection for each participant: venous whole blood, finger prick dried blood spot and saliva. Relative TL was measured using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results: TL in finger prick dried blood spots (DBS) washighly correlated with TL in whole blood (r = 0.84, p < 0.001). Salivary TL was also correlated with whole blood TL (r = 0.56, p = 0.005), but this association was not as strong as that of dried blood spot TL (Steiger's Z = 2.12, p = 0.034). TL was longer in saliva than in whole blood or DBS (p's < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings have important implications for future study design by supporting the validity of less-invasive methods that can be implemented with vulnerable populations or in the field. Further, these findings aid in interpreting the burgeoning area of biological aging research and may shed light on our understanding of inconsistencies in the empirical literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 29 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,456,235
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,341
of 4,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#375,092
of 439,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#92
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.