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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Bradford, M. M. (1976) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 · Cited by 255,302
Cited by
Pareja‐Blanco, F., Rodríguez‐Rosell, D., Sánchez‐Medina, L., Sanchis‐Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora‐Custodio, R., Yáñez‐García, J. M., Morales‐Alamo, D., Pérez‐Suárez, I., Calbet, J. A. L., et al. (2017) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.12678 · Cited by 505
Braunstein, M., Espinosa, B. J., Chan, J., Belisle, J. T., & R. Jacobs, W. (2003) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03438.x · Cited by 272
Sriram, K., Miller, D. B., & O'Callaghan, J. P. (2006) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03566.x · Cited by 242
The human peroxisomal ABC half transporter ALDP functions as a homodimer and accepts acyl–CoA esters
van Roermund, C. W. T., Visser, W. F., IJlst, L., van Cruchten, A., Boek, M., Kulik, W., Waterham, H. R., & Wanders, R. J. A. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.08-110866 · Cited by 233
Requejo, R., Hurd, T. R., Costa, N. J., & Murphy, M. P. (2010) · The FEBS Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07576.x · Cited by 231
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.