ArticleGenes2024
Comparison of Fecal MicroRNA Isolation Using Various Total RNA Isolation Kits.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing protocols for microRNA profiling of infant and toddler stool.RNA biology · 2026Article
- Systematic assessment for potential endogenous normalizers for microRNA analysis in fecal samples.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- MicroRNA‑microbiome cross‑kingdom networks drive inflammatory bowel disease through dynamic regulatory ecosystems (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring microRNAs in Bile Duct Stents as Diagnostic Biomarkers for Biliary Pathologies.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Liver Diseases: Science, Fiction and the Foreseeable Future.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fecal specimens have long been regarded as promising sources for gastrointestinal cancer screening and have, thus, been extensively investigated in biomarker research. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNA molecules involved in regulating various biological processes. They are commonly dysregulated during tumor development and exhibit differential expression in feces. To assess the preanalytical feasibility of fecal miRNA analysis, we systematically compared the performance of commonly used total RNA extraction methods. Fecal samples from healthy subjects were utilized for this evaluation. Various methods, including miRNeasy, Universal, Trizol, RNeasy, and mirVana kits, were employed to isolate total RNA. MiRNA expression analyses were conducted using TaqMan or SYBR Green qRT-PCR for a subset of miRNAs, with externally spiked-in cel-miR-39 used for normalization. Most methods demonstrated similar performance in terms of the total RNA concentration and purity. Externally spiked cel-miR-39 and endogenous miRNAs (RNU6b, miR-16, and miR-21) exhibited comparable concentrations across the different RNA isolation methods, whereas the RNeasy mini kit consistently yielded lower values. Our findings suggest that various isolation methods produce reproducible and comparable miRNA expression results, supporting the potential comparability and translational applicability of miRNA-based biomarker research 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.