Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21318414›Full record

ReviewSeminars in immunopathology2011

Advances of genomic science and systems biology in renal transplantation: a review.

David Perkins, Meenakshi Verma, Ken J Park

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in immunopathology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David PerkinsDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. davperkins@ucsd.edu
Meenakshi Verma
Ken J Park

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of rejection in kidney transplant patients is based on histologic classification of a graft biopsy. The current "gold standard" is the Banff 97 criteria; however, there are several limitations in classifying rejection based on biopsy samples. First, a biopsy involves an invasive procedure. Second, there is significant variance among blinded pathologists in the interpretation of a biopsy. And third, there is also variance between the histology and the molecular profiles of a biopsy. To increase the positive predictive value of classifiers of rejection, a Banff committee is developing criteria that integrate histologic and molecular data into a unified classifier that could diagnose and prognose rejection. To develop the most appropriate molecular criteria, there have been studies by multiple groups applying omics technologies in attempts to identify biomarkers of rejection. In this review, we discuss studies using genome-wide data sets of the transcriptome and proteome to investigate acute rejection, chronic allograft dysfunction, and tolerance. We also discuss studies which focus on genetic biomarkers in urine and peripheral blood, which will provide clinicians with minimally invasive methods for monitoring transplant patients. We also discuss emerging technologies, including whole-exome sequencing and RNA-Seq and new bioinformatic and systems biology approaches, which should increase the ability to develop both biomarkers and mechanistic understanding of the rejection process.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGenomicsKidney TransplantationSystems BiologyBiomarkersGraft RejectionHumansImmunosuppression TherapyPrecision MedicineSignal TransductionBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID21318414
PMCPMC3082700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.