4.6 Review

Noncoding RNAs versus Protein Biomarkers in Cardiovascular Disease

Journal

TRENDS IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 583-596

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.02.001

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SCHU 2983/1-1, SCHU 2983/2-1]
  2. BHF Interdisciplinary PhD studentship
  3. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) [81Z0710102]
  4. British Heart Foundation (BHF) [CH/16/3/32406]
  5. BHF programme [RG/16/14/32397]
  6. BHF Special Project
  7. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network TRAIN-HEART
  8. Foundation Leducq
  9. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust and King's College London
  10. King's College Hospital
  11. VASCage - Research Centre on Vascular Ageing and Stroke
  12. COMET program - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies by the Austrian Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology
  13. Austrian Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs
  14. federal state Tyrol
  15. federal state Salzburg
  16. federal state Vienna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of more sensitive protein biomarker assays results in continuous improvements in detectability, extending the range of clinical applications to the detection of subclinical cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, these efforts have not yet led to improvements in risk assessment compared with existing risk scores. Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) have been assessed as biomarkers, and miRNAs have attracted most attention. More recently, other ncRNA classes have been identified, including long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and circular RNAs (circRNAs). Here, we compare emerging ncRNA biomarkers in the cardiovascular field with protein biomarkers for their potential in clinical application, focusing on myocardial injury.

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