4.6 Article

Gene Expression Profiling of Blood in Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Patients

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL STROKE RESEARCH
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 575-587

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12975-011-0103-3

关键词

Arteriovenous malformation; Blood; Gene expression; Intracranial hemorrhage; Microarray analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P01 NS044155, R01 NS034949, 3R01NS034949-14S1, K23 NS058357]
  2. NIH/NIGMS [T32 GM08440]
  3. NINDS
  4. ARRA [NS056302]
  5. American Heart Association Bugher Foundation Center for Stroke Prevention
  6. Aneurysm and AVM Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVMs) are an important cause of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in young adults. Gene expression profiling of blood has led to the identification of stroke biomarkers and may help identify BAVM biomarkers and illuminate BAVM pathogenesis. It is unknown whether blood gene expression profiles differ between (1) BAVM patients and healthy controls or (2) unruptured and ruptured BAVM patients at presentation. We characterized blood transcriptional profiles in 60 subjects (20 unruptured BAVM, 20 ruptured BAVM, and 20 healthy controls) using Affymetrix whole genome expression arrays. Expression differences between groups were tested by ANOVA, adjusting for potential confounders. Genes with absolute fold change >= 1.2 (false discovery rate corrected p <= 0.1) were selected as differentially expressed and evaluated for over-representation in KEGG biological pathways (p <= 0.05). Twenty-nine genes were differentially expressed between unruptured BAVM patients and controls, including 13 which may be predictive of BAVM. Patients with ruptured BAVM compared to unruptured BAVM differed in expression of 1,490 genes, with over-representation of genes in 8 pathways including MAPK, VEGF, Wnt signaling, and several inflammatory pathways. These results suggest clues to the pathogenesis of BAVM and/or BAVM rupture and point to potential biomarkers or new treatment targets.

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