4.6 Article

Dysregulation of MicroRNAs in Colonic Field Carcinogenesis: Implications for Screening

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045591

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01CA111257, R01CA156186, R42CA130508, R21CA141112, R21CA140936, R01CA128641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests often have a trade-off between efficacy and patient acceptability/cost. Fecal tests (occult blood, methylation) engender excellent patient compliance but lack requisite performance underscoring the need for better population screening tests. We assessed the utility of microRNAs (miRNAs) as markers of field carcinogenesis and their potential role for CRC screening using the azoxymethane (AOM)-treated rat model. We found that 63 miRNAs were upregulated and miR-122, miR-296-5p and miR-503# were downregulated in the uninvolved colonic mucosa of AOM rats. We monitored the expression of selected miRNAs in colonic biopsies of AOM rats at 16 weeks and correlated it with tumor development. We noted that the tumor bearing rats had significantly greater miRNA modulation compared to those without tumors. The miRNAs showed good diagnostic performance with an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of >0.7. We also noted that the miRNA induction in the colonic mucosa was mirrorred in the mucus layer fecal colonocytes isolated from AOM rat stool and the degree of miRNA induction was greater in the tumor bearing rats compared to those without tumors. Lastly, we also noted significant miRNA modulation in the Pirc rats- the genetic model of colon carcinogenesis, both in the uninvolved colonic mucosa and the fecal colonocytes. We thus demonstrate that miRNAs are excellent markers of field carcinogenesis and could accurately predict future neoplasia. Based on our results, we propose an accurate, inexpensive, non-invasive miRNA test for CRC risk stratification based on rectal brushings or from abraded fecal colonocytes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据