Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39271970›Full record

ArticleClinical proteomics2024

Research biopsies in kidney transplantation: an evaluation of surgical techniques and optimal tissue mass allowing molecular and histological analyses.

Sadr Ul Shaheed, Hannah McGivern, Marta Oliveira, Corinna Snashall, Chris W Sutton, Ka Ho Tam, Simon Knight, Syed Hussain Abbas, Jesper Kers, Sarah Cross and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical proteomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sadr Ul ShaheedNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK. Sadr.shaheed@nds.ox.ac.uk.
Hannah McGivernNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Marta OliveiraNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Corinna SnashallNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Chris W SuttonInstitute of Cancer Therapeutics, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Ka Ho TamInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Simon KnightNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Syed Hussain AbbasNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Jesper KersDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sarah CrossNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
Rutger PloegNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.
James HunterNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch biopsies have great potential to advance scientific knowledge by helping to establish predictors of favourable or unfavourable outcomes in kidney transplantation. We evaluated punch and core biopsies of different sizes to determine the optimal size for clinical use.

methodsA total of 54 punch biopsies and 18 core needle biopsies were retrieved by three transplant surgeons. Each surgeon obtained three separate 2 mm, 3 mm and 4 mm punch biopsy samples and three 23 mm (length) core needle biopsies from two pig kidneys.

results4 mm punch biopsies yielded the greatest amount of protein (2.11 ± 0.41 mg) with good reproducibility between surgeons and biopsy types (Coefficient of Variation ∼ 22.13%). All surgeons found 2 mm biopsies technically challenging to obtain and sample processing was difficult due to the sample size. Shotgun proteomics identified 3853 gene products with no significant difference in the quantitative proteome of 2 mm and 3 mm punch biopsies. However, the expression of 158 Kidney enriched genes, was higher in bigger and deeper 4 mm punch and core needle biopsies compared to 2 mm biopsy. Only 80% of 2 mm biopsies demonstrated the presence of glomeruli, whereas glomeruli were present in 100% of all other biopsy sizes.

conclusionsThe 2 mm punch biopsy has been shown to be challenging to use and frequently provides inadequate tissue for histology and proteomics while 3 mm research biopsies were the smallest size that were technically obtainable with adequate tissue for molecular studies.

Indexed as

Core needle biopsyKidney transplantationPunch biopsyShotgun proteomics

Identifiers

PMID39271970
PMCPMC11401365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.