4.6 Article

A MiRNA Signature for Defining Aggressive Phenotype and Prognosis in Gliomas

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108950

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health
  2. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro [AIRC - IG13585]
  3. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale
  4. National Council of Research of Italy CNR EPIGEN grants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gliomas represent a disparate group of tumours for which there are to date no cure. Thus, there is a recognized need for new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches based on increased understanding of their molecular nature. We performed the comparison of the microRNA (miRNA) profile of 8 WHO grade II gliomas and 24 higher grade tumours (2 WHO grade III and 22 glioblastomas) by using the Affymetrix GeneChip miRNA Array v. 1.0. A relative quantification method (RT-qPCR) with standard curve was used to confirm the 22 miRNA signature resulted by array analysis. The prognostic performances of the confirmed miRNAs were estimated on the Tumor Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets. We identified 22 miRNAs distinguishing grade II gliomas from higher grade tumours. RT-qPCR confirmed the differential expression in the two patients' groups for 13 out of the 22 miRNAs. The analysis of the Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) and Lower Grade Glioma (LGG) datasets from TCGA demonstrated the association with prognosis for 6 of those miRNAs. Moreover, in the GBM dataset miR-21 and miR-210 were predictors of worse prognosis in both univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses (HR 1.19, p = 0.04, and HR 1.18, p = 0.029 respectively). Our results support a direct contribution of miRNAs to glioma cancerogenesis and suggest that miR-21 and miR-210 may play a role in the aggressive clinical behaviour of glioblastomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available