SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A circular RNA blood panel that differentiates Alzheimer's disease from other dementia types.

Biomark Res · 2022-08-18

DOI: 10.1186/s40364-022-00405-0PMID: 35982472

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

BackgroundCircular RNAs (circRNAs) have been demonstrated to be associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Here, we conducted a study to explore whether circRNAs have the ability to differentiate AD from cognitively normal controls and other types of dementia, such as vascular dementia (VaD), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and dementia with Lewy body (DLB).MethodsThree datasets were included in this study to measure blood circRNAs. The pilot study (Dataset 1, n = 40; controls, 20; AD, 20) was used to screen differentially expressed circRNAs. Dataset 2 (n = 124; controls, 61; AD, 63) was recruited for the establishment of the diagnostic model using a circRNA panel. Further, the Dataset 3 (n = 321; control, 58; AD, 60; VaD, 50; PDD, 51; bvFTD, 52; DLB, 50) was used to verify the diagnostic model.ResultsIn Dataset 1, 22 upregulated and 19 downregulated circRNAs were revealed. In Dataset 2, a six-circRNA panel was found to be able to distinguish patients with AD from controls. Then this panel was applied to Dataset 3 and successfully differentiated AD from other types of dementia.ConclusionThis study suggested that a six-circRNA panel is AD-specific and a promising biomarker of 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.