4.3 Article

Discrepancy in transcriptomic profiling between CD34+stem cells and primary bone marrow cells in myelodysplastic neoplasm

期刊

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2023.107071

关键词

Gene expression; CD34+stem-cells; Primary bone marrow cells; Myelodysplastic neoplasm; Microarray; Pathogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through transcriptome analysis of CD34(+) HSC and PBMC from MDS patients, we identified differential gene expression patterns between these two cell types, which may serve as pathogenic biomarkers for MDS. We also observed a certain similarity in the activated pathways in both cell types. These findings have clinical significance for the diagnosis and treatment of MDS.
Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) biomarkers can be used to help diagnose and monitor the disease, as well as to determine which treatments are most effective. So, given the complexity of Myelodysplastic neoplasm (MDS), it is difficult to determine the impact and disparities of DEGs between CD34(+) HSC (hematopoietic stem cells) or primary bone marrow cells (PBMC) in MDS pathogenesis, and therefore it remains largely unknown. Here, we performed an in-silico transcriptome analysis on CD34(+) HSC and PBMC from 1092 MDS patients analyzing the divergences between differential gene expression patterns in these two cell types as potential pathogenic biomarkers for MDS. Initially, we observed a difference of 7117 expressed transcripts between PBMC (n = 40,165) and CD34 + HSC (n = 33,048). Also, we identified that CD34(+) HSC and PBMC samples showed 240 and 2948 DEGs, respectively. In summary, we identified DEGs disparities in CD34(+) HSC and PBMC cell types. However, there was a certain similarity of the activated pathways in both cellular samples based on Gene Ontology and KEGG pathways enrichment analyses. Our results provide novel insights into novel DEGs biomarkers to MDS pathogenesis with clinical significance.

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

4.3
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