4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of microRNA Binding Site Distribution and microRNA-Mediated Gene Expression Repression of Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes

期刊

GENES
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13030481

关键词

microRNA; miRNA binding sites; miRNA-regulated repression; tumor suppressor genes; oncogenes

资金

  1. National Institute of Health (NIH) [R15GM122006]
  2. Texas Tech University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the regulation of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes (TSG) by miRNA. The results show that cancer gene mRNAs have more miRNA binding sites and are more repressed by miRNA than the overall protein-coding gene population. Importantly, TSG mRNAs are more highly targeted and regulated by miRNA than oncogene mRNAs.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a family of short, noncoding RNAs that can regulate gene expression levels of over half of the human genome. Previous studies on the role of miRNAs in cancer showed overall widespread downregulation of miRNAs as a hallmark of human cancer, though individual miRNAs can be both tumor suppressive and oncogenic, and cancer genes are speculated to be more targeted by miRNA. However, the extents to which oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes (TSG) are controlled by miRNA have not been compared. To achieve this goal, we constructed lists of oncogenes and TSGs and compared them with each other, and with the whole protein-coding gene population, in terms of miRNA binding sites distribution and expression level changes upon genetic disruption of miRNA production. As expected, the results show that cancer gene mRNAs anchor more miRNA binding sites, and are under a higher degree of miRNA-mediated repression at both mRNA abundance and translation efficiency levels than the whole protein-coding gene population. Importantly, on average, TSG mRNAs are more highly targeted and regulated by miRNA than oncogene mRNAs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comparison of miRNA regulation of oncogenes and TSGs.

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