4.3 Article

Detection of let-7 miRNAs in urine supernatant as potential diagnostic approach in non-metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

期刊

BIOCHEMIA MEDICA
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 411-417

出版社

CROATIAN SOC MEDICAL BIOCHEMISTRY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.043

关键词

renal cell carcinoma; urine microRNAs; let-7; diagnostic biomarker

资金

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [AZV 15-31071A, 15-34678A]
  2. MZCR RVO (MOU) [00209805]
  3. Ministry of Education Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LQ1601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Urinary microRNAs (miRNAs) are emerging as a clinically useful tool for early and non-invasive detection of various types of cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether let-7 family miRNAs differ in their urinary concentrations between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases and healthy controls. Materials and methods: In the case-control study, 69 non-metastatic clear-cell RCC patients and 36 gender/age-matched healthy controls were prospectively enrolled. Total RNA was purified from cell-free supernatant of the 105 first morning urine specimens. Let-7 family miRNAs were determined in cell-free supernatant using quantitative miRNA real-time reverse-transcription PCR and absolute quantification approach. Results: Concentrations of all let-7 miRNAs (let-7a, let-7b, let-7c, let-7d, let-7e and let-7g) were significantly higher in urine samples obtained from RCC patients compared to healthy controls (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.005; P = 0.006; P = 0.015 and P = 0.002, respectively). Subsequent ROC analysis has shown that let-7a concentration possesses good ability to differentiate between cases and controls with area under curve being 0.8307 (sensitivity 71%, specificity 81%). Conclusions: We have shown that let-7 miRNAs are abundant in the urine samples of patients with clear-cell RCC, and out of six let-7 family members, let-7a outperforms the others and presents promising non-invasive biomarker for the detection of RCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据