4.2 Review

Establishing molecular signatures of stroke focusing on omic approaches: a narrative review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 130, 期 12, 页码 1250-1266

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2020.1732964

关键词

Ischemic stroke; GWAS; genomics; stroke treatment

资金

  1. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research New Delhi, India [09/1051/(0029)/2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke or 'brain attack' is considered to be the major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide after myocardial infraction. Inspite of the years of research and clinical practice, the pathogenesis of stroke still remains incompletely understood. Omics approaches not only enable the description of a huge number of molecular platforms but also have a potential to recognize new factors associated with various complex disorders including stroke. The most significant development among all other omics technologies over the recent years has been seen by genomics which is a powerful tool for exploring the genetic architecture of stroke. Genomics has decisively established itself in stroke research and by now wealth of data has been generated providing new insights into the physiology and pathophysiology of stroke. However, the efficacy of genomic data is restricted to risk prediction only. Omics approaches not only enable the description of a huge number of molecular platforms but also have a potential to recognize new factors associated with various complex disorders including stroke. The data generated by omics technologies enables clinicians to provide detailed insight into the makeup of stroke in individual patients, which will further help in developing diagnostic procedures to direct therapies. Present review has been compiled with an aim to understand the potential of integrated omics approach to help in characterization of mechanisms leading to stroke, to predict the patient risk of getting stroke by analyzing signature biomarkers and to develop targeted therapeutic strategies.

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

4.2
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