ArticleScientific reports2024
A quantitative comparison of urine centrifugation and filtration for the isolation and analysis of urinary nucleic acid biomarkers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Review
- Urinary Cell-Free DNA detection platform for bacterial cystitis diagnosis via spot-based machine learning.Journal of advanced research · 2026Article
- Integrated multicompartment urinary long non-coding RNAs profiling (cellular, cell-free, and extracellular vesicle) for better differential diagnosis of biopsy-proven diabetic and non-diabetic kidney disease beyond conventional markers.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
- Exosome-Inspired Nanocarriers in Cancer Therapy: Bio-Derived Nanotechnology Meets Nano Drug Delivery.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Design, Development, and Clinical Validation of a Novel Kit for Cell-Free DNA Extraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urine is a rich source of nucleic acid biomarkers including cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and RNA for monitoring the health of kidney allografts. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether urine filtration can serve as an alternative to the commonly used method of centrifugation to collect urinary fluid and cell pellets for isolating cfDNA and cellular messenger RNA (mRNA). We collected urine specimens from kidney allograft recipients and obtained the urine supernatant and cell pellet from each specimen using both filtration and centrifugation for paired analyses. We performed DNA sequencing to characterize the origin and properties of cfDNA, as well as quantitative PCR of mRNAs extracted from cell fractions. Our results showed that the biophysical properties of cfDNA, the microbial DNA content, and the tissues of origin of cfDNA were comparable between samples processed using filtration and centrifugation method. Similarly, mRNA quality and quantity obtained using both methods met our criteria for downstream application and the Ct values for each mRNA were comparable between the two techniques.The Ct values demonstrated a high degree of correlation. These findings suggest that urine filtration is a viable alternative to urine centrifugation for isolation of nucleic acid biomarkers from urine specimens.
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.