Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 55: 602-604, 2009. First published February 6, 2009; 10.1373/clinchem.2008.119552
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2008.119552v1
55/4/602    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Umansky, S. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Umansky, S. R.
(Clinical Chemistry. 2009;55:602-604.)
© 2009 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorials

From Transrenal DNA to Stem Cell Differentiation: An Unexpected Twist

Samuil R. Umansky1,a

1 Xenomics, Monmouth Junction, NJ.

aAddress correspondence to the author at: Xenomics, 1 Deer Park Drive, Suite F, Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852. Fax 732-438-8299; e-mail sumansky@xenomics.com.

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

In this issue of Clinical Chemistry, Hung et al. describe the results of a study originally devoted to investigation of the transrenal DNA (Tr-DNA)1 phenomenon. These authors report on the presence of donor-derived, cell-free DNA and cells in the urine of sex-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients(1).

The term Tr-DNA defines DNA molecules that appear in the urine from sources located outside of the urinary system. The investigators who found such molecules in urine for the first time suggested that DNA fragments from cells dying throughout the body appear in the bloodstream as so-called cell-free circulating DNA (cfcDNA) and then cross the kidney barrier into the urine(2). Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how fetal DNA appears in the urine of pregnant women or how tumor-specific DNA markers appear in the urine of patients with tumors located outside of the urinary system. This original observation was reproduced in many laboratories(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). At the same time, several groups could not detect fetal DNA in the urine of pregnant women(8)(9), raising doubts about the concept of Tr-DNA. The latter results can be explained by the fact that Tr-DNA fragments are shorter than cfcDNA, and shorter amplicons should be used for their detection(4)(7)(10), especially in prenatal models in which concentrations of fetal DNA in maternal urine are low. It is also important to . . . [Full Text of this Article]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.