Trial reportPloS one2024
Assessment of salivary microRNA by RT-qPCR: Facing challenges in data interpretation for clinical diagnosis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Species Framework to Identify Candidate Salivary miRNAs Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Understanding the bacteriome, phageome and phage-associated bacteriome in healthy Vietnamese children under two years of age.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Potential of Selected microRNAs in Colorectal Cancer: A Literature Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Emerging salivary biomarkers for early detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Salivary microRNAs (miRNAs) have been recently revealed as the next generation of non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnostics of diverse diseases. However, their short and highly homologous sequences make their quantification by RT-qPCR technique highly heterogeneous and study dependent, thus limiting their implementation for clinical applications. In this study, we evaluated the use of a widely used commercial RT-qPCR kit for quantification of salivary miRNAs for clinical diagnostics. Saliva from ten healthy volunteers were sampled four times within a three month time course and submitted for small RNA extraction followed by RT-qPCR analysed. Six miRNAs with different sequence homologies were analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of the tested miRNA assays were corroborated using synthetic miRNAs to evaluate the reliability of all tested assays. Significant variabilities in expression profiles of six miRNAs from ten healthy participants were revealed, yet the poor specificity of the assays offered insufficient performance to associate these differences to biological context. Indeed, as the limit of quantification (LOQ) concentrations are from 2-4 logs higher than that of the limit of detection (LOD) ones, the majority of the analysis for salivary miRNAs felt outside the quantification region. Most importantly, a remarkable number of crosstalk reactions exhibiting considerable OFF target signal intensities was detected, indicating their poor specificity and limited reliability. However, the spike-in of synthetic target miRNA increased the capacity to discriminate endogenous salivary miRNA at the LOQ concentrations from those that were significantly lower. Our results demonstrate that comparative analyses for salivary miRNA expression profiles by this commercial RT-qPCR kit are most likely associated to technical limitations rather than to biological differences. While further technological breakthroughs are still required to overcome discrepancies, standardization of rigorous sample handling and experimental design according to technical parameters of each assay plays a crucial role in reducing data inconsistencies across studies.
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.