ArticleElectrophoresis2025
Comparison of Two Strategies of Analysis of Urinary Protein Composition for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Renal Diseases.
Article in Electrophoresis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteinuria analysis is necessary to detect the early stages of kidney disease before the estimated glomerular filtration rate deteriorates and to monitor the progression of treated kidney disease. Electrophoresis is often the first orientation test, although this test is time-consuming and its interpretation may be subjective. Two types of electrophoresis gel for urinary proteins are available: (1) high-resolution (HR) agarose gel and (2) agarose gel combined with immunological detection of specific urinary proteins after their electrophoretic migration (UP). As the former is known to provide the best results for the quantification of monoclonal protein and the latter for its characterization, we only investigated methods for determining the type of kidney damage in our study. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare two strategies for proteinuria typing: UP gel to HR gel with quantification of specific proteins (albumin, eventually transferrin, α1-microglobulin, eventually β2-microglobulin, immunoglobulin G (IgG), and α2-macroglobulin if blood is present), and HR gel allowing the visualization of RBP, β2-microglobulin, and transferrin. The two methods were comparable in detecting abnormal excretion of tubular markers (α1-microglobulin and β2-microglobulin), nonselective glomerular markers such as IgG, and post-renal marker (α2-macroglobulin). The results differed for albumin, whose limit of detection was 25 times lower than the limit of quantification by immunoassay, leading to false positives and no differentiation between low and high excretion of albuminuria. In conclusion on UP gel, when proteinuria typing is prescribed without investigating monoclonal protein, we recommend carrying out immunoassays for specific proteins (e.g., albumin, α1-microglobulin, eventually β2-microglobulin, and IgG). In a context of associated monoclonal protein investigation, tubular and glomerular damage markers (excluding albumin) can be interpreted on a UP gel. If blood is present, α2-macroglobulin must be measured using immunoassays to determine the post-renal origin of proteinuria using the ratio α2-macroglobulin/albumin.
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.