↓ Skip to main content

Avoiding false discovery in biomarker research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Avoiding false discovery in biomarker research
Published in
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12858-016-0073-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pranali Patel, Uros Kuzmanov, Seema Mital

Abstract

Human tyrosine-protein phosphatase non-receptor type substrate 1α (SIRPA) is a surface marker identified in cardiomyocytes differentiated from human embryonic stem cells. Our objective was to determine if circulating SIRPA levels can serve as a biomarker of cardiac injury in children undergoing open heart surgery. Paired pre- and post-operative serum samples from 48 pediatric patients undergoing open heart surgery and from 6 pediatric patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (controls) were tested for SIRPA protein levels using commercially available SIRPA ELISA kits from two manufacturers. Post-operative SIRPA concentrations were significantly higher in patients after cardiac surgery compared to non-cardiac surgery when tested using SIRPA ELISA kits from both manufacturers. To verify the identity of the protein detected, recombinant human SIRPA protein (rhSIRPA) was tested on both ELISA kits. The calibrator from both ELISA kits was analyzed by Western blot as well as by Mass Spectrometry (MS). Western blot analysis of calibrators from both kits did not identity SIRPA. MS analysis of calibrators from both ELISA kits identified several inflammatory markers and albumin but no SIRPA was detected. We conclude that commercially available ELISA kits for SIRPA give false-positive results. Verifying protein identity using robust protein characterization is critical to avoid false biomarker discovery when using commercial ELISA kits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Other 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Computer Science 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,473,509
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#330
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,272
of 380,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 380,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.