SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Signature of Five Long Non-Coding RNAs for Predicting the Prognosis of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Competing Endogenous RNA Networks.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2021-01-28

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2020.598606PMID: 33584243

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play important roles in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the functions and regulatory mechanisms of lncRNA are largely unclear. Herein, we obtained 3,158 lncRNAs by microarray re-annotation. A global network of competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) was developed for AD and normal samples were based on the gene expressions profiles. A total of 255 AD-deficient messenger RNA (mRNA)-lncRNAs were identified by the expression correlation analysis. Genes in the dysregulated ceRNAs were found to be mainly enriched in transcription factors and micro RNAs (miRNAs). Analysis of the disordered miRNA in the lncRNA-mRNA network revealed that 40 pairs of lncRNA shared more than one disordered miRNA. Among them, nine lncRNAs were closely associated with AD, Parkinson's disease, and other neurodegenerative diseases. Of note, five lncRNAs were found to be potential biomarkers for AD. Real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assay revealed that PART1 was downregulated, while SNHG14 was upregulated in AD serum samples when compared to normal samples. This study elucidates the role of lncRNAs in the pathogenesis of AD and presents new lncRNAs that can be exploited to design diagnostic and therapeutic agents for AD.

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.