4.6 Article

Alteration of N6 -Methyladenosine mRNA Methylation in a Rat Model of Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.605654

关键词

cerebral ischemia reperfusion injury; MCAO; R; N-6-methyladenosine; FTO; key genes

资金

  1. Young Scientists Fund, National Natural Science Foundation of China [81801051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified alterations in the m6A modification profile in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury model rats, leading to differential gene expression associated with inflammation and neuronal pathways. Among m6A regulators, FTO was specifically downregulated in neurons after MCAO/R, providing new insights into the mechanisms of cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury.
Aim This study was conducted in order to reveal the alterations in the N-6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification profile of cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury model rats. Materials and Methods Rats were used to establish the middle cerebral artery occlusion and reperfusion (MCAO/R) model. MeRIP-seq and RNA-seq were performed to identify differences in m6A methylation and gene expression. The expression of m6A methylation regulators was analyzed in three datasets and detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, western blot, and immunofluorescence. Results We identified 1,160 differentially expressed genes with hypermethylated or hypomethylated m6A modifications. The differentially expressed genes with hypermethylated m6A modifications were involved in the pathways associated with inflammation, while hypomethylated differentially expressed genes were related to neurons and nerve synapses. Among the m6A regulators, FTO was specifically localized in neurons and significantly downregulated after MCAO/R. Conclusion Our study provided an m6A transcriptome-wide map of the MACO/R rat samples, which might provide new insights into the mechanisms of cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury.

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