Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27677432›Full record

ReviewExpert review of molecular diagnostics2016

Advances in diagnostics for transplant rejection.

Michael Nasr, Tara Sigdel, Minnie Sarwal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of molecular diagnostics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Gene expression-based molecular scoring of pancreas transplant rejection for a quantitative assessment of rejection severity and resistance to treatment.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinical translation of immunomodulatory therapeutics.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021
    Review
  10. Chronic histiocytic intervillositis: A breakdown in immune tolerance comparable to allograft rejection?American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2021
    Review
  11. Comprehensive Analysis of Cardiac Xeno-Graft Unveils Rejection Mechanisms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Clinical consequences of primary CMV infection after renal transplantation: a case-control study.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Advances in Detection of Kidney Transplant Injury.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Michael Nasra Sarwal Lab , University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Tara Sigdela Sarwal Lab , University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA.
Minnie Sarwala Sarwal Lab , University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA.

Funding

Urinary Proteome Monitoring for Transplant InjuryR01DK083447 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CAMP, DAVID G, SARWAL, MINNIE M · 2010 to 2013
$2.4M
Transplant injury biology and monitoring by urine proteomicsR56DK083447 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SARWAL, MINNIE M · 2015 to 2015
$100k
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK083447NIDDK NIH HHS R56 DK083447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIdentification of allograft injury, including acute clinical and subclinical injury, is vital in increasing the longevity of the transplanted organ. Acute rejection, which occurs as a result of a variety of immune and non-immune factors including the infiltration of immune cells and antibodies to the donor specific epitopes, poses a significant risk to the organ. Recent years have marked an increase in the discovery of new genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic biomarkers in molecular diagnostics, which offer better potential for personalized management of the transplanted organ by providing earlier detection of rejection episodes. Areas covered: This review was compiled from key word searches of full-text publications relevant to the field. Expert commentary: Many of the recent advancements in the molecular diagnostics of allograft injury show much promise, but before they can be fully realized further validation in larger sample sets must be conducted. Additionally, for better informed therapeutic decisions, more work must be completed to differentiate between different causes of injury. Moreover, the diagnostics field is looking at methodologies that allow for multiplexing, the ability to identify multiple targets simultaneously, in order to provide more robust biomarkers and better understanding.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDisease ManagementGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsGraft RejectionHumansImmunosuppression TherapyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPrecision MedicineProteomicsTransplantation ImmunologyBiomarkersacute rejectiongenomicsgraft monitoringindicators of immune responseMolecular diagnosticsorgan transplantationpersonalized transplant managementproteomicstranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID27677432
PMCPMC5303063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.