On 2013 Dec 24, Kenneth Witwer commented:

As of April, 2014, published studies of dietary xenomiR transfer include the following (excluding reviews, in order of publication, and with public availability of high-throughput sequencing data noted if applicable):

This study: High-throughput sequencing (HTS) mapped up to tens of thousands of reads per million of specific plant microRNAs in human circulation; similar results in bovines; functional consequences for cholesterol metabolism in mice; public data availability not reported.

Zhang Y, 2012: analysis of >80 public HTS datasets; found uptake of few microRNAs; suggested contamination or other artifact(s) as explanation of miR168a detection; publicly available datasets identified in article.

Wang K, 2012: HTS, single digit reads per million of MIR168 in human circulation; public data availability not reported.

Wang K, 2013: HTS, fractional reads per million of MIR168 in murine circulation; public data availability not reported.

Snow JW, 2013: qPCR, little or no measurable uptake of dietary plant and/or animal microRNAs by humans, mice, and adult bees.

Witwer KW, 2013: qPCR, no response to dietary intake in a small primate feeding study; reportedly non-specific low-level amplification.

Dickinson B, 2013: HTS and qPCR; as mentioned by M Mangan, mouse replication study with negative results; data submitted to NCBI SRA as SRP028401.

Tosar JP, 2014: analysis of data and datasets; interpreted correlation between plant RNAs in original study findings and in a study of Amphioxus by the same group as evidence of contamination and "non-dietary" origin.

On 2013 Nov 16, M Mangan commented:

An attempt to replicate the claims in this paper has been published here: Dickinson B, 2013. The researchers were unable to make the same observations.

There's also an interesting backstory to the publication of the replication paper which you can find here: Anonymous, 2013.

On 2013 Nov 16, M Mangan commented:

An attempt to replicate the claims in this paper has been published here: Dickinson B, 2013. The researchers were unable to make the same observations.

There's also an interesting backstory to the publication of the replication paper which you can find here: Anonymous, 2013.

On 2013 Dec 24, Kenneth Witwer commented:

As of April, 2014, published studies of dietary xenomiR transfer include the following (excluding reviews, in order of publication, and with public availability of high-throughput sequencing data noted if applicable):

This study: High-throughput sequencing (HTS) mapped up to tens of thousands of reads per million of specific plant microRNAs in human circulation; similar results in bovines; functional consequences for cholesterol metabolism in mice; public data availability not reported.

Zhang Y, 2012: analysis of >80 public HTS datasets; found uptake of few microRNAs; suggested contamination or other artifact(s) as explanation of miR168a detection; publicly available datasets identified in article.

Wang K, 2012: HTS, single digit reads per million of MIR168 in human circulation; public data availability not reported.

Wang K, 2013: HTS, fractional reads per million of MIR168 in murine circulation; public data availability not reported.

Snow JW, 2013: qPCR, little or no measurable uptake of dietary plant and/or animal microRNAs by humans, mice, and adult bees.

Witwer KW, 2013: qPCR, no response to dietary intake in a small primate feeding study; reportedly non-specific low-level amplification.

Dickinson B, 2013: HTS and qPCR; as mentioned by M Mangan, mouse replication study with negative results; data submitted to NCBI SRA as SRP028401.

Tosar JP, 2014: analysis of data and datasets; interpreted correlation between plant RNAs in original study findings and in a study of Amphioxus by the same group as evidence of contamination and "non-dietary" origin.