↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of 1,5-anhydroglucitol in blood and saliva: from non-targeted metabolomics to biochemical assay

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Measurement of 1,5-anhydroglucitol in blood and saliva: from non-targeted metabolomics to biochemical assay
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0897-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Halama, Michal Kulinski, Sara Abdul Kader, Noothan J. Satheesh, Abdul Badi Abou-Samra, Karsten Suhre, Ramzi M. Mohammad

Abstract

Diabetes testing using saliva, rather than blood and urine, could facilitate diabetes screening in public spaces. We previously identified 1,5-anhydro-D-glucitol (1,5-AG) in saliva as a diabetes biomarker. The Glycomark™ assay kit is FDA approved for 1,5-AG measurement in blood. Here we evaluated its applicability for 1,5-AG quantification in saliva. Using pooled saliva samples, we validated Glycomark™ assay use with a RX Daytona(+) clinical chemistry analyser. We then used this set-up to analyse 82 paired blood and saliva samples from a diabetes case-control study, for which broad mass spectrometry-based characterization of the blood and saliva metabolome was also available. Osmolality was measured to account for potential variability in saliva samples. The technical variability of the read-outs for the pooled saliva samples (CV = 2.05 %) was comparable to that obtained with manufacturer-provided blood surrogate quality controls (CV = 1.38-1.8 %). We found a high correlation between Glycomark assay and mass spectrometry measurements of serum 1,5-AG (r(2) = 0.902), showing reproducibility of the non-targeted metabolomics results. The significant correlation between the osmolality measurements performed at two independent platforms with the time interval of 2 years (r(2) = 0.887), also indicates the sample integrity. The assay read-out for saliva was not correlated with the mass spectrometry-based 1,5-AG saliva measurements. Comparison with the full saliva metabolome revealed a high correlation of the saliva assay read-outs with galactose. Glycomark™ assay read-outs for saliva were stable and replicable. However, the signal was dominated by galactose, which is biochemically similar to 1,5-AG and absent in blood. Adapting the 1,5-AG kit for saliva analysis will require enzymatic depletion of galactose. This should be feasible, since the assay already includes a similar step for glucose depletion from blood samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 6 11%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,469,948
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,587
of 4,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,825
of 334,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#43
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 334,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.