4.6 Review

Circular RNAs and RNA Splice Variants as Biomarkers for Prognosis and Therapeutic Response in the Liquid Biopsies of Lung Cancer Patients

期刊

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00390

关键词

cancer biomarkers; circular RNAs; liquid biopsies; lung cancer; RNA splice variants

资金

  1. Institut National de la Recherche (INSERM)
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  3. University Grenoble Alpes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer, including non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), is the most frequently diagnosed cancer. It is also the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide because of its late diagnosis and its resistance to therapies. Therefore, the identification of biomarkers for early diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of therapeutic response is urgently needed. Liquid biopsies, especially blood, are considered as promising tools to detect and quantify circulating cancer biomarkers. Cell-free circulating tumor DNA has been extensively studied. Recently, the possibility to detect and quantify RNAs in tumor biopsies, notably circulating cell-free RNAs, has gained great attention. RNA alternative splicing contributes to the proteome diversity through the biogenesis of several mRNA splice variants from the same pre-mRNA. Circular RNA (circRNA) is a new class of RNAs resulting from pre-mRNA back splicing. Owing to the development of high-throughput transcriptomic analyses, numerous RNA splice variants and, more recently, circRNAs have been identified and found to be differentially expressed in tumor patients compared to healthy controls. The contribution of some of these RNA splice variants and circRNAs to tumor progression, dissemination, or drug response has been clearly demonstrated in preclinical models. In this review, we discuss the potential of circRNAs and mRNA splice variants as candidate biomarkers for the prognosis and the therapeutic response of NSCLC in liquid biopsies.

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