Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new collection method for the evaluation of nasal mucus proteins

Ruocco, Fattori, Romanelli, Martelloni, Casani, Samolewska, Rezzonico·1998·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract

Background: Different sampling techniques for collecting nasal mucus have been used. The eosinophil and its granule toxin proteins, especially the eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), is an important inflammatory cell. Objective: In the healthy subjects (with no acute or chronic disease of the respiratory tract), no detailed quantitative data on mucus nasal proteins have been reported, so the aim of the study is to demonstrate a simple and reliable method for the collection of nasal mucus and for measuring nasal ECP. Methods: Our method consists in collecting two specimens of mucus from each nasal fossa, using a square of sterile pre‐humidified gauze, centrifuged at 2000 g for 20 min and stored at −20°C until tested. To evaluate the reproducibility of the technique, 30 healthy subjects were retested after 24 h. Results: The amounts of secretion gathered in the 89 collections did not show any statistical difference between the sexes. In the pooled subjects (n = 59), the mean levels of ECP were 108 ng/mL and 325 ng/g and total protein (TP) levels were 701 mg/dL and 2.5 mg/g (expressed in absolute concentration and concentration related to the weight in grams). In the classes, according to age, no statistical differences were found on analysis of the groups by: sex, recovery rate, and ECP and TP concentrations. The Reproducibility Index was very good for the recovery rate (0.78), ECP (ng/mL = 0.95, ng/g = 0.83) and TP (mg/dL = 0.89, mg/g = 0.76). Conclusion: With our method, the sample collections were taken with minimal stimulation of the mucosa and it was well tolerated by the subjects; the low known dilution factor is also adequate for analysing small quantities of mucus recovered, and the protein concentration can be measured as an absolute value.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00312.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,296

Metadata

Authors
Ruocco, Fattori, Romanelli, Martelloni, Casani, Samolewska, & Rezzonico
Venue
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-07
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
881-888
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2028714428
Cited by
1,296
References
1
FWCI
59.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new collection method for the evaluation of nasal mucus proteins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00312.x
The paper
Ruocco, Fattori, Romanelli, Martelloni, Casani, Samolewska, & Rezzonico. (1998). A new collection method for the evaluation of nasal mucus proteins. Clinical & Experimental Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00312.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.