4.8 Article

miRTarBase 2016: updates to the experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions database

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 D1, 页码 D239-D247

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv1258

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 101-2311-B-009-005-MY3, MOST 103-2628-B-009-001-MY3, MOST104-2319-B-400-002, MOST 103-2319-B-010-002, MOST103-311-Y-001-027]
  2. UST-UCSD International Center of Excellence in Advanced Bioengineering by the Ministry of Science and Technology I-RiCE Program [MOST 103-2911-I-009-101]
  3. Veterans General Hospitals
  4. University System of Taiwan (VGHUST) Joint Research Program [VGHUST103-G5-11-2]
  5. MOE ATU
  6. Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China, Taiwan [103-2628-B-009-001-MY3, MOHW104-TDU-B-212-124-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs of approximately 22 nucleotides, which negatively regulate the gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. This study describes an update of the miRTarBase (http://miRTarBase.mbc.nctu.edu.tw/) that provides information about experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions (MTIs). The latest update of the miRTarBase expanded it to identify systematically Argonaute-miRNA-RNA interactions from 138 crosslinking and immunoprecipitation sequencing (CLIP-seq) data sets that were generated by 21 independent studies. The database contains 4966 articles, 7439 strongly validated MTIs (using reporter assays or western blots) and 348 007 MTIs from CLIP-seq. The number of MTIs in the miRTarBase has increased around 7-fold since the 2014 miRTarBase update. The miRNA and gene expression profiles from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) are integrated to provide an effective overview of this exponential growth in the miRNA experimental data. These improvements make the miRTarBase one of the more comprehensively annotated, experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions databases and motivate additional miRNA research efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据