ArticleScientific reports2020
Technical considerations when designing a gene expression panel for renal transplant diagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Complement-dependent Cytotoxicity Crossmatch and HLA Typing in Solid Organ Transplant.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2024Review
- Diagnostic application of transcripts associated with antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant biopsies.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2022Article
- Advanced Genomics-Based Approaches for Defining Allograft Rejection With Single Cell Resolution.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gene expression analysis is emerging as a new diagnostic tool in transplant pathology, in particular for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection. Diagnostic gene expression panels are defined on the basis of their pathophysiological relevance, but also need to be tested for their robustness across different preservatives and analysis platforms. The aim of this study is the investigate the effect of tissue sampling and preservation on candidate genes included in a renal transplant diagnostic panel. Using the NanoString platform, we compared the expression of 219 genes in 51 samples, split for formalin-fixation and paraffin-embedding (FFPE) and RNAlater preservation (RNAlater). We found that overall, gene expression significantly correlated between FFPE and RNAlater samples. However, at the individual gene level, 46 of the 219 genes did not correlate across the 51 matched FFPE and RNAlater samples. Comparing gene expression results using NanoString and qRT-PCR for 18 genes in the same pool of RNA (RNAlater), we found a significant correlation in 17/18 genes. Our study indicates that, in samples from the same routine diagnostic renal transplant biopsy procedure split for FFPE and RNAlater, 21% of 219 genes of potential biological significance do not correlate in expression. Whether this is due to fixatives or tissue sampling, selection of gene panels for routine diagnosis should take this information into consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.