Ann Surg Oncol 2010, 17:3210–3218.CrossRef 41. Liu CG, Calin GA, Meloon B, Gamliel N, Sevignani C, Ferracin M, Dumitru CD, Shimizu M, Zupo S, Dono M, Alder H, Bullrich F, Negrini M, Croce CM: An oligonucleotide microchip for genome-wide microRNA profiling in human and mouse tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101:9740–9744.PubMedCrossRef 42. Babak T, Zhang W, Morris Q, Blencowe BJ, Hughes TR: Probing microRNAs with microarrays:
tissue specificity and functional inference. RNA 2004, 10:1813–1819.PubMedCrossRef Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ contributions MZM, XK and MZW conceived the study and participated in the data collection and Savolitinib supplier analysis. MZM, XK and MZW performed the experiments. MZM and KX analysed the data. MZM, XK, ZWQ, WG and CHP wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
“Introduction Recent investigation has shown that biochemical markers of bone turnover, both markers of bone resorption and markers of bone formation, can confirm a biochemical response to treatment of osteoporosis with antiresorptive agents , and early changes in these markers can predict long-term changes in bone mineral density . Further, changes Wortmannin chemical structure in markers are associated
with fracture risk [3–5]. Although these findings have secured a place for the use of bone turnover markers in research trials, markers still are not used frequently in clinical practice. Use in the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients has largely been limited by cost, by the data supporting marker significance, and by variability, both 6-phosphogluconolactonase pre-analytical and analytical. Pre-analytical variability includes biological variability, which comprises that from INCB28060 circadian rhythms, diet, age, and gender , as well as that due to sample handling and storage. Analytical variability, in contrast, is that which originates from the laboratory measurements themselves. While laboratory assays are studied rigorously in standardized settings, data are lacking about the reproducibility
of bone turnover marker measurements in actual clinical practice. The data that do exist raise concerns: a European investigation involving interlaboratory variation found that results for most biochemical markers of bone turnover differed markedly among laboratories . In the USA, laboratory standards are determined by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and assessed by proficiency-testing providers such as the College of American Pathologists, but the results of cross-laboratory proficiency testing are not routinely available to clinicians. The evaluation of laboratory reproducibility in clinical practice is especially important as laboratory assays evolve. For some markers, manual enzyme-linked immunosorbant assays (ELISAs) are being replaced by assays using the same monoclonal antibodies but run on automated platforms.