4.6 Article

Plasma miR-216a as a potential marker of pancreatic injury in a rat model of acute pancreatitis

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 16, 期 36, 页码 4599-4604

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i36.4599

关键词

MiR-216a; Plasma miRNA; Pancreatic injury; Acute pancreatitis; Biomarker

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [30971344]
  2. Second Military Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To study the potential value and specificity of plasma miR-216a as a marker for pancreatic injury. METHODS: Two rat models were applied in this article: L-arginine-induced acute pancreatitis was used as one model to explore the potential value of plasma miR-216a for detection of pancreatic injury; nonlethal sepsis induced in rats by single puncture cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) was used as the other model to evaluate the specificity of plasma miR-216a compared with two commonly used markers (amylase and lipase) for acute pancreatitis. Plasmas were sampled from rats at indicated time points and total RNA was isolated. Real-Time Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify miR-216a in plasmas. RESULTS: In the acute pancreatitis model, among five time points at which plasmas were sampled, miR-216a concentrations were significantly elevated 24 h after arginine administration and remained significantly increased until 48 h after operation (compared with 0 h time point, P < 0.01, Kruskal-Wallis Test). In the CLP model, plasma amylase and lipase, two commonly used biomarkers for acute pancreatitis, were significantly elevated 24 h after operation (compared with 0 h time point, P < 0.01 and 0.05 respectively, Pairwise Bonferroni corrected t-tests), while miR-216a remained undetectable among four tested time points. CONCLUSION: Our article showed for the first time that plasma miR-216a might serve as a candidate marker of pancreatic injury with novel specificity. (C) 2010 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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