ArticlePloS one2019
Quantification of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in urine using a newborn piglet model of asphyxia.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma has been described as a potential diagnostic indicator for a variety of clinical conditions, including neonatal hypoxia. Neonatal hypoxia or perinatal asphyxia is a severe medical condition caused by a temporary interruption in oxygen availability during birth. Previously, we have reported temporal changes of cfDNA detected in blood in a newborn piglet model of perinatal asphyxia. However, cfDNA can also be found in other body liquids, opening for a less invasive diagnostic prospective. The objective of this study was to test and establish a reliable method for the isolation and quantification of cfDNA from urine and to explore changes in the quantities of cfDNA using a newborn piglet model of asphyxia. Animals were exposed to hypoxia-reoxygenation (n = 6), hypoxia-reoxygenation + hypothermia (n = 6) or were part of the sham-operated control group (n = 6) and urine samples (n = 18) were collected at 570 minutes post-intervention. Two alternative applications of cfDNA measurement were tested, an indirect method comprising a centrifugation step together with DNA extraction with magnetic beads versus a direct assessment based on two centrifugation steps. CfDNA concentrations were determined by a fluorescent assay using PicoGreen and by qRT-PCR. Genomic (gDNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) cfDNA were determined in parallel, taking into account potential differences in the rates of damages caused by oxidative stress. In contrast to previous publications, our results indicate that the direct method is insufficient. Application of the indirect method obtained with the fluorescence assay revealed mean cfDNA levels (SD) of 1.23 (1.76) ng/ml for the hypoxia samples, 4.47 (6.15) ng/ml for the samples exposed to hypoxia + hypothermia and 2.75 (3.62) ng/ml for the control animals. The mean cfDNA levels in piglets exposed to hypoxia + hypothermia revealed significantly higher cfDNA amounts compared to mean cfDNA levels in the samples purely exposed to hypoxia (p < 0.05); however, no significant difference could be determined when compared to the control group (p = 0.09). Application of the indirect method by qRT-PCR revealed mean cfDNA levels of mtDNA and gDNA at the detection limit of the technique and thus no reliable statistics could be performed between the observed cfDNA levels in the investigated groups. The methodology for detection and monitoring of cfDNA in urine has to be further optimized before it can be applied in a clinical setting in the future.
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.