ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the ability of a saliva collection device (Salivette®) to measure cortisol levels in saliva samples of domestic cats and to assess the effect of a synthetic analogue of the feline facial pheromone fraction F3 (Feliway®) on cortisol levels. A total of 28 domestic cats from a private high-quality sanctuary were sampled before exposure to the facial pheromone and after 35 days of exposure. Two pheromone devices were placed in the area where the animals ate to guarantee the exposure of all cats. The collecting device yielded a sufficient volume of saliva (≥0.20mL) to allow cortisol measurement. Cortisol measurements ranged from 0.02g/dL to 0.16µg/dL, with a difference between before (42.1%) and after (62.6%) exposure to the pheromone (F=3.2351; p≤0.0002). No difference in cortisol levels was observed between before (x =0.078µg/dL) and after (x =0.066µg/dL) (t=1.79; p=0.08) exposure. However, salivary cortisol levels decreased in 75% (21/28) of the cats after exposure (x 2=12.07; p=0.0005), suggesting that the animals have different susceptibilities to the pheromone or that they spent different lengths of time in the area where the pheromone devices were installed.(AU)
O presente estudo avaliou o uso de um dispositivo de coleta salivar (Salivette®) para mensurar o cortisol salivar de gatos domésticos e avaliar o efeito do análogo sintético do feromônio facial felino - fração F3 (Feliway®) sobre seus níveis de cortisol. Um total de 28 gatos domésticos mantidos em gatil particular tiveram amostras de saliva coletadas antes da exposição ao feromônio facial felino e após 35 dias de exposição. Dois difusores de feromônio foram instalados na área onde os animais se alimentavam, a fim de garantir que todos os gatos fossem expostos. Os dispositivos de coleta salivar permitiram a coleta de volume salivar suficiente (≥0,20 mL) para a mensuração do cortisol. Os níveis de cortisol salivar variaram de 0,02g/dL a 0,16ug/dL, com coeficiente de variação de 42,1% antes e de 62,6% após à exposição ao feromônio (F=3.2351; p≤ 0.0002). Não foi verificada diferença entre os níveis de cortisol salivar nas amostras obtidas antes (x =0,078µg/dL) e após (x =0,066µg/dL) (t=1,79; p=0,08) à exposição. Entretanto, os níveis de cortisol salivar diminuíram em 75% (21/28) dos gatos expostos ao feromônio (x 2=12,07; p=0,0005), sugerindo que os animais apresentam susceptibilidade diferente ao feromônio facial sintético ou que passaram períodos de tempo distintos na área onde os difusores foram instalados.(AU)
Subject(s)
Animals , Cats , Behavior, Animal , Hydrocortisone/analysis , Pheromones/analysis , Saliva/chemistry , Stress, Psychological , Immunodeficiency Virus, FelineABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the simple spitting method and the Salivette® method of collecting saliva for detecting pepsin in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD). SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Thirty-two patients diagnosed with LPRD by 24 hour multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring were enrolled prospectively. The amounts of pepsin in saliva determined by the simple spitting method and the Salivette® method were compared. RESULTS: Simple spitting showed higher sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. There was no statistically significant difference between the amount of pepsin detected by simple spitting (10.07±11.68 ng/mL) versus that detected using the Salivette® method (7.09±7.27 ng/mL) (p=0.258). CONCLUSIONS: The simple spitting method has higher sensitivity, specificity and accuracy than the Salivette® method for detecting pepsin in patients with LPRD.
Subject(s)
Humans , Electric Impedance , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Laryngopharyngeal Reflux , Methods , Pepsin A , Prospective Studies , Saliva , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Saliva is increasingly being used as a specimen for systemic disease as well as for oral health status. Especially, salivary amylase has been studied as an excellent index for psychological stress. Authors evaluated the measurement of salivary amylase activities collected by Salivettes (Sarstedt, Germany). METHODS: Saliva specimens were collected from 13 healthy adults between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Participants were asked to gently chew tampons of Salivettes for 1 min. Immediately after collection, all specimens were stored frozen. On the day of testing, they were centrifuged after thawing and diluted with distilled water. Amylase was measured by Dimension RxL Max (Dade Behring Inc., USA). We evaluated precision, linearity, and recovery rate of Salivette. Amylase activities between collection of saliva by Salivette and passive drool were compared, and also the changes of amylase by the storage temperature were evaluated. RESULTS: Intra-run CVs for three levels of amylase were excellent. Between-day CVs and total CVs were good only for mid and high levels. A good linear relationship was found at all diluted levels. Dosing Salivettes with 2 mL, 1.5 mL, and 1 mL yielded sample recovery 85.5+/-2.4%, 82.4+/-1.5%, and 72.2+/-3.1%, respectively and amylase recovery 78.9+/-10.9%, 74.1+/-13.7%, and 37.3+/-26.9%, respectively. Amylase by Salivette and passive drool were correlated well (r=0.757), although they showed a significant difference. Amylase activity was not affected by the storage temperature. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of salivary amylase using Salivette could be a useful test having good intra-run CVs and linearity. More than 1.5 mL of saliva would be needed to have more than 70% recovery of Salivette.