AIM: miRNAs are showing utility as biomarkers in urologic disease, however, a rigorous evaluation of their stability in urine is lacking. Here, we evaluate the stability of miRNAs in urine under clinically relevant storage procedures. MATERIALS & METHODS: Eight healthy individuals provided clean catch urine samples that were stored at room temperature or at 4°C for 5 days, or subjected to ten freeze-thaw cycles at -80°C. For each condition, two miRNAs, miR-16 and miR-21, were quantitated by quantitative real-time PCR. RESULTS: All conditions demonstrated a surprising degree of stability of miRNAs in the urine: by the end of ten freeze-thaw cycles, 23-37% of the initial amount remained; over the 5-day period of storage at room temperature, 35% of the initial amount remained; and at 4°C, 42-56% of the initial amount remained. Both miRNAs also showed degradation at approximately the same rate. CONCLUSION: miRNAs are relatively stable in urine under a variety of storage conditions, which supports their utility as urinary biomarkers.
AIM: miRNAs are showing utility as biomarkers in urologic disease, however, a rigorous evaluation of their stability in urine is lacking. Here, we evaluate the stability of miRNAs in urine under clinically relevant storage procedures. MATERIALS & METHODS: Eight healthy individuals provided clean catch urine samples that were stored at room temperature or at 4°C for 5 days, or subjected to ten freeze-thaw cycles at -80°C. For each condition, two miRNAs, miR-16 and miR-21, were quantitated by quantitative real-time PCR. RESULTS: All conditions demonstrated a surprising degree of stability of miRNAs in the urine: by the end of ten freeze-thaw cycles, 23-37% of the initial amount remained; over the 5-day period of storage at room temperature, 35% of the initial amount remained; and at 4°C, 42-56% of the initial amount remained. Both miRNAs also showed degradation at approximately the same rate. CONCLUSION: miRNAs are relatively stable in urine under a variety of storage conditions, which supports their utility as urinary biomarkers.
Authors: M J Scian; D G Maluf; K G David; K J Archer; J L Suh; A R Wolen; M U Mba; H D Massey; A L King; T Gehr; A Cotterell; M Posner; V Mas Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sandra L Taylor; Sheila Ganti; Nikolay O Bukanov; Arlene Chapman; Oliver Fiehn; Michael Osier; Kyoungmi Kim; Robert H Weiss Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2010-02-03
Authors: Hadi Valadi; Karin Ekström; Apostolos Bossios; Margareta Sjöstrand; James J Lee; Jan O Lötvall Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Kasey C Vickers; Brian T Palmisano; Bassem M Shoucri; Robert D Shamburek; Alan T Remaley Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2011-03-20 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Linda Fabris; Yvonne Ceder; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Guido W Jenster; Karina D Sorensen; Scott Tomlins; Tapio Visakorpi; George A Calin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Silvana Debernardi; Nathalie J Massat; Tomasz P Radon; Ajanthah Sangaralingam; Ana Banissi; Darren P Ennis; Thomas Dowe; Claude Chelala; Stephen P Pereira; Hemant M Kocher; Bryan D Young; Giles Bond-Smith; Robert Hutchins; Tatjana Crnogorac-Jurcevic Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Nathaniel Weygant; Yang Ge; Dongfeng Qu; John S Kaddis; William L Berry; Randal May; Parthasarathy Chandrakesan; Edwin Bannerman-Menson; Kenneth J Vega; James J Tomasek; Michael S Bronze; Guangyu An; Courtney W Houchen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Sagar Bhayana; Feifei Song; Jidhin Jacob; Paolo Fadda; Nicholas C Denko; Meng Xu-Welliver; Arnab Chakravarti; Naduparambil K Jacob Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 2.841