4.0 Article

Evaluation of miR-146a (rs2910164) polymorphism in coronary artery disease: Case-control and silico analysis

期刊

GENE REPORTS
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.genrep.2022.101687

关键词

Polymorphism; miR-146a; Cardiovascular disease; Bioinformatics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to assess the role of miR-146a polymorphism in cardiovascular disease. Through gene typing and computational analysis, it was found that the genotype frequency of miR-146a (rs2910164) showed no significant difference between cardiovascular disease patients and controls. Computational analysis suggested that different miR-146a variants may lead to different RNA folding arrangements and protein binding sites.
As the most common cause of mortality, cardiovascular disease is a serious problem in the health system worldwide. The function of a small non-coding RNA, miR-146a, in inflammation and myocardial hypertrophy has been determined previously. In this experiment, we aim to assess the role of miR-146a polymorphism in cardiovascular disease. In this case-control study, 297 cardiovascular disease (CAD) patients and 306 healthy controls were enrolled. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) were applied to determine the genotype of the miR-146a (rs2910164) SNP. The secondary structure of miR-146a and potential protein interactions of two alternative variants, C and G, were determined with in silico and computational analysis. Statistically, P < 0.05 was considered significant. The frequency of genotypes including CC, CG, and GG related to miR-146a (rs2910164) polymorphism showed no significant difference between CAD patients and controls (P = 0.928). The results of in silico and computational analysis reported that G and C-variants may support different RNA folding arrangements and promote different protein binding sites. However, miR-146a gene polymorphism (rs2910164) has no significant association with CAD in the study population.

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

4.0
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