ArticleCellular immunology2020
Multi-gene technical assessment of qPCR and NanoString n-Counter analysis platforms in cynomolgus monkey cardiac allograft recipients.
Article in Cellular immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of real-time PCR and nCounter NanoString techniques to validate copy number alterations in oral cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Novel Immune Response Evasion Strategy to Redose Adeno-associated Viral Vectors and Prolong Survival in Surfactant Protein-B-Deficient Mice.American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology · 2025Article
- Transcriptomics of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Differences in Gene Expression in the Blood of Patients With and Without Significant Glenoid Bone Loss.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges and opportunities in processing NanoString nCounter data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- The Distant Molecular Effects on the Brain by Cancer Treatment.Brain sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative gene expression profiling of cardiac allografts characterizes the phenotype of the alloimmune response, yields information regarding differential effects that may be associated with various anti-rejection drug regimens, and generates testable hypotheses regarding the pathogenesis of the chronic rejection lesions typically observed in non-human primate heart transplant models. The goal of this study was to assess interplatform performance and variability between the relatively novel NanoString nCounter Analysis System, ΔΔCT (relative) RT-qPCR, and standard curve (absolute) RT-qPCR utilizing cynomolgus monkey cardiac allografts. Methods for RNA isolation and preamplification were also systematically evaluated and effective methods are proposed. In this study, we demonstrate strong correlation between the two RT-qPCR methods, but variable and, at times, weak correlation between RT-qPCR and NanoString. NanoString fold change results demonstrate less sensitivity to small changes in gene expression than RT-qPCR. These findings appear to be driven by technical aspects of each platform that influence the conditions under which each technique is ideal. Collectively, our data contribute to the general effort to optimally utilize gene expression profiling techniques, not only for transplanted tissues, but for many other applications where accurate rank-order of gene expression versus precise quantification of absolute gene transcript number may be relatively valuable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.