4.6 Article

Characterisation of key biomarkers in diabetic ulcers via systems bioinformatics

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 529-542

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13900

Keywords

bioinformatics; biomarkers; diabetes complications; ulcer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the pathogenesis of diabetic ulcers using weighted gene co-expression network analysis and validates the function of important genes through animal experiments. The results demonstrate that these genes are closely related to immune response and play a crucial role in diabetic ulcers.
Diabetic ulcers (DUs) are characterised by a high incidence and disability rate. However, its pathogenesis remains elusive. Thus, a deep understanding of the underlying mechanisms for the pathogenesis of DUs has vital implications. The weighted gene co-expression network analysis was performed on the main data from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Gene Ontology (GO) terms, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis were adopted to analyse the potential biological function of the most relevant module. Furthermore, we utilised CytoHubba and protein-protein interaction network to identify the hub genes. Finally, the hub genes were validated by animal experiments in diabetic ulcer mice models. The expression of genes from the turquoise module was found to be strongly related to DUs. GO terms, KEGG analysis showed that biological functions are closely related to immune response. The hub genes included IFI35, IFIT2, MX2, OASL, RSAD2, and XAF1, which were higher in wounds of DUs mice than that in normal lesions. Additionally, we also demonstrated that the expression of hub genes was correlated with the immune response using immune checkpoint, immune cell infiltration, and immune scores. These data suggests that IFI35, IFIT2, MX2, OASL, RSAD2, and XAF1 are crucial for DUs.

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