Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24942259›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Identification of tubular injury microRNA biomarkers in urine: comparison of next-generation sequencing and qPCR-based profiling platforms.

Rounak Nassirpour, Sachin Mathur, Mark M Gosink, Yizheng Li, Ahmed M Shoieb, Joanna Wood, Shawn P O'Neil, Bruce L Homer, Laurence O Whiteley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Urinary miRNA Biomarkers of Drug-Induced Kidney Injury and Their Site Specificity Within the Nephron.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Analysis of Human miRNA Derived From Bladder Epithelial Cells Infected With Uropathogenic Escherichia coli.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Identification of urinary microRNA biomarkers forJournal of veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rounak Nassirpour
Sachin Mathur
Mark M Gosink
Yizheng Li
Ahmed M Shoieb
Joanna Wood
Shawn P O'Neil
Bruce L Homer
Laurence O WhiteleyDrug Safety, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, 1 Burtt Rd, Andover, MA 01810, USA. laurence.o.whiteley@pfizer.com.
Pfizer (United States) · USGuy's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNAs that regulate protein levels post-transcriptionally. miRNAs play important regulatory roles in many cellular processes and have been implicated in several diseases. Recent studies have reported significant levels of miRNAs in a variety of body fluids, raising the possibility that miRNAs could serve as useful biomarkers. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly employed in biomedical investigations. Although concordance between this platform and qRT-PCR based assays has been reported in high quality specimens, information is lacking on comparisons in biofluids especially urine. Here we describe the changes in miRNA expression patterns in a rodent model of renal tubular injury (gentamicin). Our aim is to compare RNA sequencing and qPCR based miRNA profiling in urine specimen from control and rats with confirmed tubular injury.

resultsOur preliminary examination of the concordance between miRNA-seq and qRT-PCR in urine specimen suggests minimal agreement between platforms probably due to the differences in sensitivity. Our results suggest that although miRNA-seq has superior specificity, it may not detect low abundant miRNAs in urine samples. Specifically, miRNA-seq did not detect some sequences which were identified by qRT-PCR. On the other hand, the qRT-PCR analysis was not able to detect the miRNA isoforms, which made up the majority of miRNA changes detected by NGS.

conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first time that miRNA profiling platforms including NGS have been compared in urine specimen. miRNAs identified by both platforms, let-7d, miR-203, and miR-320, may potentially serve as promising novel urinary biomarkers for drug induced renal tubular epithelial injury.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAnimalsBiomarkersGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksGentamicinsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingKidney TubulesMaleMicroRNAsRatsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA InterferenceRNA, MessengerBiomarkersGentamicinsMicroRNAsRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID24942259
PMCPMC4079956
OpenAlexW2046298776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.