ArticleCancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers2022
A pilot study to troubleshoot quality control metrics when assessing circulating miRNA expression data reproducibility across study sites.
Article in Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Micro RNA in Colorectal Cancer-Potential Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers-An Updated Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Assessment of NanoString technology as a tool for profiling circulating miRNA in maternal blood during pregnancy.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2024Article
- Serum microRNA as a potential biomarker for the activity of thyroid eye disease.Scientific reports · 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
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the growing interest in using microRNAs (miRNAs) as biomarkers of early disease, establishment of robust protocols and platforms for miRNA quantification in biological fluids is critical.
objectiveThe goal of this multi-center pilot study was to evaluate the reproducibility of NanoString nCounter™ technology when analyzing the abundance of miRNAs in plasma and cystic fluid from patients with pancreatic lesions.
methodsUsing sample triplicates analyzed across three study sites, we assessed potential sources of variability (RNA isolation, sample processing/ligation, hybridization, and lot-to-lot variability) that may contribute to suboptimal reproducibility of miRNA abundance when using nCounter™, and evaluated expression of positive and negative controls, housekeeping genes, spike-in genes, and miRNAs.
resultsPositive controls showed a high correlation across samples from each site (median correlation coefficient, r> 0.9). Most negative control probes had expression levels below background. Housekeeping and spike-in genes each showed a similar distribution of expression and comparable pairwise correlation coefficients of replicate samples across sites. A total of 804 miRNAs showed a similar distribution of pairwise correlation coefficients between replicate samples (p= 0.93). After normalization and selecting miRNAs with expression levels above zero in 80% of samples, 55 miRNAs were identified; heatmap and principal component analysis revealed similar expression patterns and clustering in replicate samples.
conclusionsFindings from this pilot investigation suggest the nCounter platform can yield reproducible results across study sites. This study underscores the importance of implementing quality control procedures when designing multi-center evaluations of miRNA abundance.
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.