SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Competing Endogenous RNA Networks as Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases.

Int J Mol Sci · 2020-12-16

DOI: 10.3390/ijms21249582PMID: 33339180

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Protein aggregation is classically considered the main cause of neuronal death in neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). However, increasing evidence suggests that alteration of RNA metabolism is a key factor in the etiopathogenesis of these complex disorders. Non-coding RNAs are the major contributor to the human transcriptome and are particularly abundant in the central nervous system, where they have been proposed to be involved in the onset and development of NDDs. Interestingly, some ncRNAs (such as lncRNAs, circRNAs and pseudogenes) share a common functionality in their ability to regulate gene expression by modulating miRNAs in a phenomenon known as the competing endogenous RNA mechanism. Moreover, ncRNAs are found in body fluids where their presence and concentration could serve as potential non-invasive biomarkers of NDDs. In this review, we summarize the ceRNA networks described in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and spinocerebellar ataxia type 7, and discuss their potential as biomarkers of these NDDs. Although numerous studies have been carried out, further research is needed to validate these complex interactions between RNAs and the alterations in RNA editing that could provide specific ceRNET profiles for neurodegenerative disorders, paving the way to a better understanding of these diseases.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.