ArticlePloS one2023
A novel rapid detection method for a single-nucleotide substitution mutation derived from canine urothelial and prostatic carcinoma cells present in small amounts in urine sediments.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 0 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For early detection of canine urothelial and prostatic carcinoma, we intend to develop and commercialize a simple and rapid detection method for the BRAF V595E mutation, a known mutation in this cancer. Detection of the single-nucleotide substitution in cancer cells contained in urine sediments is effective for early cancer diagnosis. However, urine sediment also contains many normal cells, and when there is a small relative composition of cancer cells, the mutation is difficult to detect by conventional methods other than next-generation sequencing. Our new detection method enables reliable discrimination with the same labor and cost as the PCR method. We compared the results of our new method with the results of the conventional Sanger method for 38 canine urine sediment samples, and the results of 34 samples were consistent between both methods. The remaining four results were all determined to be negative by the Sanger method and positive by our new method. For these four samples, the ratio of the mutated gene to the wild-type gene was estimated using a third-generation sequencer, and the ratio of the mutated gene was 0.1%-1.4%. We postulate that the Sanger method gave a negative result because of the low abundance of the mutated gene in these samples, proving the high sensitivity of our new method.
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.