Comparison of Different Methods of Urinary Protein Excretion Measurement: Is the King Really Dead?

The correlation of spot urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio with 24-h urinary protein excretion in various glomerulopathies

BACKGROUND

Proteinuria is an important and well-known biomarker of many forms of kidney injury. Its quantitation is of particular importance in the diagnosis and management of glomerular diseases. Its quantification can be done by several methods. Among these, the measurement of 24-h urinary protein excretion is the gold standard method. However, it is cumbersome, time-consuming, and inconvenient for patients and is not completely foolproof. Many alternative methods have been tested over time albeit with conflicting results. Among the latter, the measurement of urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (uPCR) in single-voided urinary samples is widely used. The majority of studies found a good correlation between uPCR in single urine samples with 24-h urinary protein estimation, whereas others did not.

AIM

To investigate the correlation of spot uPCR with 24-h urinary protein estimation in patients suffering from different forms of glomerulopathies at a single large-volume nephrological center in Pakistan.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at the Department of Nephrology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Pakistan from September 2017 to March 2018. All newly presenting adult patients with proteinuria who were being investigated for suspected glomerulonephritis and persistent proteinuria with ages between 18 to 60 years were enrolled. All patients were given detailed advice regarding 24-h urine collection starting at 7:00 AM for total protein and creatinine excretion estimations. A spot urine sample was collected the next day at the time of submission of a 24-h urine sample for measuring uPCR along with a blood sample. The data of patients were collected in a proforma. SPSS version 20.0 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were included. Their mean age was 30.45 ± 12.11 years. There were 94 (59.8%) males and 63 (40.2%) females. The mean 24-h urinary protein excretion was 3192.78 ± 1959.79 mg and the mean spot uPCR was 3.16 ± 1.52 in all patients. A weak but significant correlation was observed between spot uPCR and 24-h urinary protein excretion (r = 0.342, P = 0.01) among all patients. On subgroup analysis, a slightly better correlation was found in patients older than 47 years (r = 0.78), and those with body mass index > 25 kg/m2 (r = 0.45). The Bland and Altman's plot analysis comparing the differences between spot uPCR and 24-h protein measurement also showed a wide range of the limits of agreement between the two methods.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results from this study showed a significant and weakly positive correlation between spot uPCR and 24-h urinary protein estimation in different forms of glomerulopathies. The agreement between the two methods was also poor. Hence, there is a need for careful interpretation of the ratio in an unselected group of patients with kidney disease.

Urine stabilization and normalization strategies favor unbiased analysis of urinary EV content

Urine features an ideal source of non-invasive diagnostic markers. Some intrinsic and methodological issues still pose barriers to its full potential as liquid biopsy substrate. Unlike blood, urine concentration varies with nutrition, hydration and environmental factors. Urine is enriched with EVs from urinary-genital tract, while its conservation, purification and normalization can introduce bias in analysis of EV subsets in inter-and intra-individual comparisons. The present study evaluated the methods that decrease such biases such as appropriate and feasible urine storage, optimal single-step EV purification method for recovery of proteins and RNAs from small urine volumes and a normalization method for quantitative analysis of urine EV RNAs. Ultracentrifugation, chemical precipitation and immuno-affinity were used to isolate EVs from healthy donors' urine that was stored frozen or at room temperature for up to 6 months. Multiple urine biochemical and EV parameters, including particle count and protein content, were compared across urine samples. To this purpose nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) and protein assessment by BCA, ELISA and WB assays were performed. These measurements were correlated with relative abundances of selected EV mRNAs and miRNAs assessed by RT-PCR and ranked for the ability to reflect and correct for EV content variations in longitudinal urine samples. All purification methods enabled recovery and downstream analysis of EVs from as few as 1 ml of urine. Our findings highlight long term stability of EV RNAs upon urine storage at RT as well as excellent correlation of EV content in urine with some routinely measured biochemical features, such as total urine protein and albumin, but not creatinine most conventionally used for urine normalization. Comparative evaluation of mRNA and miRNAs in EV isolates revealed specific RNAs, in particular RNY4 and small miRNA panel, levels of which well reflected the inter-sample EV variation and therefore useful as possible post-analytical normalizers of EV RNA content. We describe some realistic urine processing and normalization solutions for unbiased readout of EV biomarker studies and routine clinical sampling and diagnostics providing the input for design of larger validation studies employing urine EVs as biomarkers for particular conditions and diseases.