4.7 Article

Circulating microRNA profile as a potential biomarker for obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-49940-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) [PI 14/01266, PI 18/00449]
  2. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)
  3. Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica (SEPAR)
  4. Societat Catalana de Pneumologia (SOCAP)
  5. IRBLleida Biobank [B.0000682]
  6. PLATAFORMA BIOBANCOS [PT17/0015/0027]
  7. AGAUR-University of Lleida
  8. Convocatoria d'Ajuts 2018 de Promocio a la Recerca en Salut

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluation of microRNAs (miRNAs) could allow characterization of the obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and help diagnose it more accurately. We aimed to examine circulating miRNA profiles to establish the differences between non-OSA and OSA patients. Additionally, we aimed to analyse the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on the miRNA profile. This observational, longitudinal study included 230 subjects referred to the Sleep Unit due to suspected OSA. Expression profiling of 188 miRNAs in plasma was performed in 27 subjects by TaqMan-Low-Density-Array. OSA-related miRNAs were selected for validation by RT-qPCR in 203 patients. Prediction models were built to discriminate between non-OSA and OSA: 1) NoSAS-score, 2) differentially expressed miRNAs, and 3) combination of NoSAS-score plus miRNAs. The differentially expressed miRNAs were measured after 6 months of follow-up. From the 14 miRNAs selected for validation, 6 were confirmed to be differentially expressed. The areas under the curve were 0.73 for the NoSAS-score, 0.81 for the miRNAs and 0.86 for the combination. After 6 months of CPAP treatment, miRNA levels in the OSA group seem to approximate to non-OSA levels. A cluster of miRNAs was identified to differentiate between non-OSA and OSA patients. CPAP treatment was associated with changes in the circulating miRNA profile.

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