4.8 Article

A Comprehensive Study of Vesicular and Non-Vesicular miRNAs from a Volume of Cerebrospinal Fluid Compatible with Clinical Practice

Journal

THERANOSTICS
Volume 9, Issue 16, Pages 4567-4579

Publisher

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/thno.31502

Keywords

CSF miRNAs; CSF exosomes; microRNA profiling; infants; clinical samples

Funding

  1. Basque Government [IT989-16]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO [SAF2015066312]
  3. Ramon Areces Foundation [FRA-17-JMF]
  4. Severo Ochoa Excellence Accreditation [SEV-2016-0644]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) microRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as potential biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis of central nervous system malignancies. However, despite significant advances in recent years, this field still suffers from poor data reproducibility. This is especially true in cases of infants, considered a new subject group. Implementing efficient methods to study miRNAs from clinically realistic CSF volumes is necessary for the identification of new biomarkers. Methods: We compared six protocols for characterizing miRNAs, using 200-mu L CSF from infants (aged 0-7). Four of the methods employed extracellular vesicle (EV) enrichment step and the other two obtained the miRNAs directly from cleared CSF. The efficiency of each method was assessed using real-time PCR and small RNA sequencing. We also determined the distribution of miRNAs among different CSF shuttles, using size-exclusion chromatography. Results: We identified 281 CSF miRNAs from infants. We demonstrated that the miRNAs could be efficiently detected using only 200 mu L of biofluid in case of at least two of the six methods. In the exosomal fraction, we found 12 miRNAs that might be involved in neurodevelopment. Conclusion: The Norgen and Invitrogen protocols appear suitable for the analysis of a large number of miRNAs using small CSF samples.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available