Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27893852›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

A Comparative Study of SMN Protein and mRNA in Blood and Fibroblasts in Patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy and Healthy Controls.

Renske I Wadman, Marloes Stam, Marc D Jansen, Yana van der Weegen, Camiel A Wijngaarde, Oliver Harschnitz, Peter Sodaar, Kees P J Braun, Dennis Dooijes, Henny H Lemmink and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Comparative Analysis ofBiomedicines · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Spinal muscular atrophy: Biology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic advances.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026
    Review
  8. Application of Biomarkers in Spinal Muscular Atrophy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Patient-specific responses toMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Renske I WadmanBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marloes StamBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc D JansenBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yana van der WeegenBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Camiel A WijngaardeBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Oliver HarschnitzBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter SodaarBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kees P J BraunBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Child Neurology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dennis DooijesDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Henny H LemminkDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Leonard H van den BergBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W Ludo van der PolBrain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials to test safety and efficacy of drugs for patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are currently underway. Biomarkers that document treatment-induced effects are needed because disease progression in childhood forms of SMA is slow and clinical outcome measures may lack sensitivity to detect meaningful changes in motor function in the period of 1-2 years of follow-up during randomized clinical trials.

objectiveTo determine and compare SMN protein and mRNA levels in two cell types (i.e. PBMCs and skin-derived fibroblasts) from patients with SMA types 1-4 and healthy controls in relation to clinical characteristics and SMN2 copy numbers. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe determined SMN1, SMN2-full length (SMN2-FL), SMN2-delta7 (SMN2-Δ7), GAPDH and 18S mRNA levels and SMN protein levels in blood and fibroblasts from a total of 150 patients with SMA and 293 healthy controls using qPCR and ELISA. We analyzed the association with clinical characteristics including disease severity and duration, and SMN2 copy number.

resultsSMN protein levels in PBMCs and fibroblasts were higher in controls than in patients with SMA (p<0.01). Stratification for SMA type did not show differences in SMN protein (p>0.1) or mRNA levels (p>0.05) in either cell type. SMN2 copy number was associated with SMN protein levels in fibroblasts (p = 0.01), but not in PBMCs (p = 0.06). Protein levels in PBMCs declined with age in patients (p<0.01) and controls (p<0.01)(power 1-beta = 0.7). Ratios of SMN2-Δ7/SMN2-FL showed a broad range, primarily explained by the variation in SMN2-Δ7 levels, even in patients with a comparable SMN2 copy number. Levels of SMN2 mRNA did not correlate with SMN2 copy number, SMA type or age in blood (p = 0.7) or fibroblasts (p = 0.09). Paired analysis between blood and fibroblasts did not show a correlation between the two different tissues with respect to the SMN protein or mRNA levels.

conclusionsSMN protein levels differ considerably between tissues and activity is age dependent in patients and controls. SMN protein levels in fibroblasts correlate with SMN2 copy number and have potential as a biomarker for disease severity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleFibroblastsFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantMaleBiomarkersRNA, MessengerSMN2 protein, humanSurvival of Motor Neuron 2 Protein

Identifiers

PMID27893852
PMCPMC5125671
OpenAlexW2558044565

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.