Strengths and limitations of laboratory procedures for microRNA detection

Jill Koshiol, Ena Wang, Yingdong Zhao, Francesco Marincola, Maria Teresa Landi

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

83 Citations (Scopus)

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. Highthroughput, 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)907-911
Number of pages5
JournalCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

MicroRNAs
Reverse Transcription
RNA Sequence Analysis
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Untranslated RNA
Molecular Epidemiology
Biomarkers
Technology
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Strengths and limitations of laboratory procedures for microRNA detection. / Koshiol, Jill; Wang, Ena; Zhao, Yingdong; Marincola, Francesco; Landi, Maria Teresa.

In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 19, No. 4, 04.2010, p. 907-911.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Koshiol, Jill ; Wang, Ena ; Zhao, Yingdong ; Marincola, Francesco ; Landi, Maria Teresa. / Strengths and limitations of laboratory procedures for microRNA detection. In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2010 ; Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 907-911.
@article{4549cac05dba4643a2a73e90bc3e8ee6,
title = "Strengths and limitations of laboratory procedures for microRNA detection",
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. Highthroughput, 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.",
author = "Jill Koshiol and Ena Wang and Yingdong Zhao and Francesco Marincola and Landi, {Maria Teresa}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0071",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "907--911",
journal = "Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention",
issn = "1055-9965",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strengths and limitations of laboratory procedures for microRNA detection

AU - Koshiol, Jill

AU - Wang, Ena

AU - Zhao, Yingdong

AU - Marincola, Francesco

AU - Landi, Maria Teresa

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - 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. Highthroughput, 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.

AB - 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. Highthroughput, 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950790394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950790394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0071

DO - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0071

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 19

SP - 907

EP - 911

JO - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

JF - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

SN - 1055-9965

IS - 4

ER -