Cited by 447MicroRNA in disease regulationExtracellular vesicles in diseaseCircular RNAs in diseases

Circulating MicroRNA biomarker studies: pitfalls and potential solutions

Witwer, Kenneth W·2015·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Circulating microRNAs have been proposed as disease biomarkers that may aid in risk assessment, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of treatment response. The perceived opportunity has loomed particularly large in neoplastic disease, where alterations in cancer cells are thought to be reflected in the extracellular space as affected cells release upregulated miRNAs or fail to release apparently downregulated species. Despite the promise of miRNA biomarkers, evaluation of the diagnostic specificity and reproducibility of reported markers suggests that realizing this promise remains a work in progress. CONTENTS: This review examines issues of diagnostic specificity and reproducibility that have afflicted circulating miRNA studies. Surveying the breast cancer literature as an example, few miRNAs are reported consistently. Furthermore, it is posited that the assumptions underlying models of direct contributions of diseased tissue to biofluid miRNA profiles may not hold. Suggestions for improving diagnostic specificity and reliability are provided. SUMMARY: To maximize the likelihood of return on investment as miRNAs continue to be evaluated as specific and clinically useful markers, a focus is needed on miRNAs found in specific carriers, such as extracellular vesicles. Alternative sampling techniques should be developed, and nonblood biofluids should be considered. Careful optimization and standardization of preanalytical and analytical methods is needed to ensure that future results, positive or negative, are reliable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2014.221341

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Witwer, K. W.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Witwer, Kenneth W
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2015-01-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
56-63
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2115277036
Cited by
447
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › MicroRNA in disease regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Extracellular vesicles in disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Circular RNAs in diseases
Keywords
circulating microRNAs, microRNA biomarkers, breast cancer, diagnostic specificity, reproducibility, extracellular vesicles, tumor markers
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Biomarkers, Tumor, Reproducibility of Results, MicroRNAs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review