4.7 Article

A possible role for mitochondrial-derived peptides humanin and MOTS-c in patients with Q fever fatigue syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-1906-3

关键词

Q fever fatigue syndrome; Chronic fatigue syndrome; MT-RNR1; MT-RNR2; Humanin; MOTS-c

资金

  1. Q-support Foundation [UMCN-140928-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundQ fever fatigue syndrome (QFS) is a well-documented state of prolonged fatigue following around 20% of acute Q fever infections. It has been hypothesized that low grade inflammation plays a role in its aetiology. In this study, we aimed to identify transcriptome profiles that could aid to better understand the pathophysiology of QFS.MethodsRNA of monocytes was collected from QFS patients (n=10), chronic fatigue syndrome patients (CFS, n=10), Q fever seropositive controls (n=10), and healthy controls (n=10) who were age- (5years) and sex-matched. Transcriptome analysis was performed using RNA sequencing.ResultsMitochondrial-derived peptide (MDP)-coding genes MT-RNR2 (humanin) and MT-RNR1 (MOTS-c) were differentially expressed when comparing QFS (-4.8 log2-fold-change P=2.19x10(-9) and -4.9 log2-fold-change P=4.69x10(-8)), CFS (-5.2 log2-fold-change, P=3.49x10(-11) -4.4 log2-fold-change, P=2.71x10(-9)), and Q fever seropositive control (-3.7 log2-fold-change P=1.78x10(-6) and -3.2 log2-fold-change P=1.12x10(-5)) groups with healthy controls, resulting in a decreased median production of humanin in QFS patients (371pg/mL; Interquartile range, IQR, 325-384), CFS patients (364pg/mL; IQR 316-387), and asymptomatic Q fever seropositive controls (354pg/mL; 292-393).Conclusions Expression of MDP-coding genes MT-RNR1 (MOTS-c) and MT-RNR2 (humanin) is decreased in CFS, QFS, and, to a lesser extent, in Q fever seropositive controls, resulting in a decreased production of humanin. These novel peptides might indeed be important in the pathophysiology of both QFS and CFS.

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

4.7
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