ArticlePloS one2026
A SNP-based capture and clustering workflow to assess donor-derived cell-free DNA in transplantation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurement of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) enables early, non-invasive monitoring of transplanted organs, including rejection detection. We developed a method to estimate dd-cfDNA ratios using capture hybridization of 300 SNPs, next-generation sequencing (NGS), and clustering analysis. Validation was conducted using simulated mixtures of fragmented genomic DNA from two individuals (0-100%). dd-cfDNA ratios were estimated via clustering, with and without 0% mixture samples to simulate the presence or absence of pre-transplant recipient plasma. When 0% samples were included, estimation achieved an r² of 0.9987 across the full 0-100% range; without them, r² remained high (0.9973) in the clinically relevant 0-10% range. The robustness of the method was further demonstrated by in silico downsampling. MAEs with 0% samples were 0.823%, 0.766%, and 0.702% at full, 50%, and 25% read depths, respectively (0-100% range). For the 0-10% range, MAEs were 0.333%, 0.300%, and 0.467% with 0% samples, and 0.413%, 0.367%, and 0.503% without them. These results indicate that the method maintains high accuracy even under reduced input and when pre-transplant data are unavailable. We also compared clustering-based estimates with direct calculations from kidney transplant recipients, where donor and recipient SNP genotypes were known. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) from day 0 to day 28 post-transplantation was 0.9887 and 0.9316 for unrelated pairs with and without pre-transplant data, respectively. For sibling pairs, CCCs were 0.9923 and 0.9675; for parent-child pairs, the CCC was 0.9831 with pre-transplant data. CCC was not calculated for parent-child pairs without pre-transplant data due to limited samples (<10%, n = 3). These findings demonstrate high concordance, accuracy, and robustness of our clustering-based dd-cfDNA estimation method and support its potential utility in clinical transplantation settings.
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.