Jill Koshiol1, Ena Wang, Yingdong Zhao, Francesco Marincola, Maria Teresa Landi. 1. Infections and Immunepidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 7070, Rockville, MD 20852-7248, USA. koshiolj@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miR) are endogenous, noncoding RNAs involved in many cellular processes and have been associated with the development and progression of cancer. There are many different ways to evaluate miRs. METHODS: We described some of the most commonly used and promising miR detection methods. RESULTS: Each miR detection method has benefits and limitations. Microarray profiling and quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR are the two most common methods to evaluate miR expression. However, the results from microarray and quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR do not always agree. High-throughput, high-resolution next-generation sequencing of small RNAs may offer the opportunity to quickly and accurately discover new miRs and confirm the presence of known miRs in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: All of the current and new technologies have benefits and limitations to consider when designing miR studies. Results can vary across platforms, requiring careful and critical evaluation when interpreting findings. IMPACT: Although miR detection and expression analyses are rapidly improving, there are still many technical challenges to overcome. The old molecular epidemiology tenet of rigorous biomarker validation and confirmation in independent studies remains essential.
BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miR) are endogenous, noncoding RNAs involved in many cellular processes and have been associated with the development and progression of cancer. There are many different ways to evaluate miRs. METHODS: We described some of the most commonly used and promising miR detection methods. RESULTS: Each miR detection method has benefits and limitations. Microarray profiling and quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR are the two most common methods to evaluate miR expression. However, the results from microarray and quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR do not always agree. High-throughput, high-resolution next-generation sequencing of small RNAs may offer the opportunity to quickly and accurately discover new miRs and confirm the presence of known miRs in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: All of the current and new technologies have benefits and limitations to consider when designing miR studies. Results can vary across platforms, requiring careful and critical evaluation when interpreting findings. IMPACT: Although miR detection and expression analyses are rapidly improving, there are still many technical challenges to overcome. The old molecular epidemiology tenet of rigorous biomarker validation and confirmation in independent studies remains essential.
Authors: Peter T Nelson; Don A Baldwin; L Marie Scearce; J Carl Oberholtzer; John W Tobias; Zissimos Mourelatos Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Peter T Nelson; Don A Baldwin; Wigard P Kloosterman; Sakari Kauppinen; Ronald H A Plasterk; Zissimos Mourelatos Journal: RNA Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 4.942
Authors: Michael D Mattie; Christopher C Benz; Jessica Bowers; Kelly Sensinger; Linda Wong; Gary K Scott; Vita Fedele; David Ginzinger; Robert Getts; Chris Haqq Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: John R Finnerty; Wang-Xia Wang; Sébastien S Hébert; Bernard R Wilfred; Guogen Mao; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Samuel Robinson; Marie Follo; David Haenel; Maximilian Mauler; Daniela Stallmann; Lukas Andreas Heger; Thomas Helbing; Daniel Duerschmied; Karlheinz Peter; Christoph Bode; Ingo Ahrens; Marcus Hortmann Journal: Acta Pharmacol Sin Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Yingdong Zhao; Ena Wang; Hui Liu; Melissa Rotunno; Jill Koshiol; Francesco M Marincola; Maria Teresa Landi; Lisa M McShane Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 5.531