Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2024;9(12):e174153. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.174153.
Abstract
Our previous study identified 8 risk and 9 protective plasma miRNAs associated with progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in diabetes. This study aimed to elucidate preanalytical factors that influence the quantification of circulating miRNAs. Using the EdgeSeq platform, which quantifies 2,002 miRNAs in plasma, including ESKD-associated miRNAs, we compared miRNA profiles in whole plasma versus miRNA profiles in RNA extracted from the same plasma specimens. Less than half of the miRNAs were detected in standard RNA extraction from plasma. Detection of individual and concentrations of miRNAs were much lower when RNA extracted from plasma was quantified by RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) or quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) platforms compared with EdgeSeq. Plasma profiles of miRNAs determined by the EdgeSeq platform had excellent reproducibility in assessment and had no variation with age, sex, hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and cryostorage time. The risk ESKD-associated miRNAs were detected and measured accurately only in whole plasma and using the EdgeSeq platform. Protective ESKD-associated miRNAs were detected by all platforms except qRT-PCR; however, correlations among concentrations obtained with different platforms were weak or nonexistent. In conclusion, preanalytical factors have a profound effect on detection and quantification of circulating miRNAs in ESKD in diabetes. Quantification of miRNAs in whole plasma and using the EdgeSeq platform may be the preferable method to study profiles of circulating cell-free miRNAs associated with ESKD and possibly other diseases.
Authors
Eiichiro Satake, Bozena Krolewski, Hiroki Kobayashi, Zaipul I. Md Dom, Joseph Ricca, Jonathan M. Wilson, Dave S.B. Hoon, Kevin L. Duffin, Marcus G. Pezzolesi, Andrzej S. Krolewski
Usage data is cumulative from November 2024 through November 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 663 | 168 |
| 152 | 31 | |
| Figure | 702 | 0 |
| Table | 578 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 442 | 6 |
| Citation downloads | 253 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,790 | 205 |
| Total Views | 2,995 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
