ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2025
Hsa-miRNA-16-5p Of Urinary Exosomes A Reliable Biosignature Effective For Prostate Cancer Screening.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasmonic Nanoarray Biosensors for Non-Invasive Cancer Diagnostics.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Nanoparticles Used for the Delivery of RNAi-Based Therapeutics.Pharmaceutics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNA molecules critical for cellular function, growth, and development. Recent advances in remote diagnostic technologies have highlighted the potential of urinary miRNAs as non-invasive biomarkers for disease monitoring. This study introduces a simple, rapid, and cost-effective reagent for exosomal miRNA extraction, designed for urine-based exosome screening. We further identified hsa-miR-16-5p (miR-16) as a promising diagnostic biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa), with the goal of integrating this method with biosensors to enable rapid result acquisition and support early cancer detection and treatment planning. Materials and Methods: The extraction reagent was formulated using polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and diethyl pyrocarbonate (DEPC), differing from commercial kits. miRNAs were extracted and validated through RT-qPCR, focusing on miR-16 and the reference control miR-21. Results were compared against commercial kits. A cohort of 39 clinical samples-28 PCa patients, 1 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) case, and 10 healthy controls (Ctr)-was analyzed. Statistical evaluations included Results: miR-16 expression significantly differed across PCa stages and between cancerous and non-cancerous individuals (Ctr vs Stage IV: Conclusion: The proposed extraction method matches commercial kits in performance but offers notable advantages: a simplified five-step process, reduced extraction time (1.08 hours), and low cost ($0.13/test). These findings support the use of urinary miR-16 as a biomarker for PCa staging and highlight the practical value of the newly developed extraction reagent.
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.