4.6 Article

Serum microRNAs associated with concussion in football players

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1155479

关键词

miRNA; microRNA; concussion; mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI); sport injury; biomarkers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mild traumatic brain injury/concussion is a common sports injury, particularly in football players. This study found that the expression of certain serum microRNAs can distinguish concussed players from non-concussed players, indicating their potential as biomarkers for early diagnosis. The research also identified miRNAs associated with the acute phase of concussion and those with persistent changes up to 4 months post-injury.
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mild TBI)/concussion is a common sports injury, especially common in football players. Repeated concussions are thought to lead to long-term brain damage including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). With the worldwide growing interest in studying sport-related concussion the search for biomarkers for early diagnosis and progression of neuronal injury has also became priority. MicroRNAs are short, non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally. Due to their high stability in biological fluids, microRNAs can serve as biomarkers in a variety of diseases including pathologies of the nervous system. In this exploratory study, we have evaluated changes in the expression of selected serum miRNAs in collegiate football players obtained during a full practice and game season. We found a miRNA signature that can distinguish with good specificity and sensitivity players with concussions from non-concussed players. Furthermore, we found miRNAs associated with the acute phase (let-7c-5p, miR-16-5p, miR-181c-5p, miR-146a-5p, miR-154-5p, miR-431-5p, miR-151a-5p, miR-181d-5p, miR-487b-3p, miR-377-3p, miR-17-5p, miR-22-3p, and miR-126-5p) and those whose changes persist up to 4 months after concussion (miR-17-5p and miR-22-3p).

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