4.7 Article

Circulating Muscle-specific miRNAs in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Patients

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY-NUCLEIC ACIDS
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mtna.2014.29

关键词

biomarkers; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; secretion; serum miRNAs

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China (973 Program) [2010CB912500, 2012BAK01B00]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [31371189, 31070679, 31100550, 81172009]
  3. Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, CAS [SIBS 2012004]
  4. Shanghai Charity Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Noninvasive biomarkers with diagnostic value and prognostic applications have long been desired to replace muscle biopsy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients. Growing evidence indicates that circulating microRNAs are biomarkers to assess pathophysiological status. Here, we show that the serum levels of six muscle-specific miRNAs (miR-1/206/133/499/208a/208b, also known as myomiRs) were all elevated in DMD patients (P < 0.01). The receiver operating characteristic curves of circulating miR-206, miR-499, miR-208b, and miR-133 levels reflected strong separation between Becker's muscular dystrophy (BMD) and DMD patients (P < 0.05). miR-206, miR-499, and miR-208b levels were positively correlated with both age and type IIc muscle fiber content in DMD patients (2-6 years), indicating that they might represent the stage of disease as well as the process of regeneration. miR-499 and miR-208b levels were correlated with slow and fast fiber content and might reflect the ratio of slow to fast fibers in DMD patient (>6 years). Fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factor-beta, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha could affect the secretion of myomiRs, suggesting that circulating myomiRs might reflect the effects of cytokines and growth factors on degenerating and regenerating muscles. Collectively, our data indicated that circulating myomiRs could serve as promising biomarkers for DMD diagnosis and disease progression.

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

4.7
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