4.7 Article

Longitudinal study of circulating miR-122 in a rat model of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 446, 期 -, 页码 267-271

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.05.002

关键词

Circulating miRNA; miR-122; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Serum miRNA

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [26860375]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25460706, 26860375] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Circulating microRNAs (miRs) may be promising biomarkers for several diseases. We previously found that miR-122 can function as a biomarker for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, little is known regarding the time course of circulating miR-122 levels during the development of NAFLD. Here, we examined circulating miR-122 levels using a rat model of NAFLD. Methods: To clarify changes in serum levels of miR-122 during development of NAFLD, experimental rats were fed a high-fat diet (HFD) for 2-10 weeks, while control rats received standard chow. Serum and liver tissue was collected from all animals at 2, 6, and 10 weeks of feeding. Clinical laboratory parameters (cholesterol, TG, AST, ALT, NEFA) were determined by biochemistry analyzer. Hepatic lipid accumulation was estimated by Oil red 0 staining. Circulating miR-122 levels were then measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: Over the 10 weeks of feeding, body weight, total liver lipids, and liver and serum triacylglycerol were increased in the HFD group compared to the control group. However, no significant changes in serum alanine aminotransferase activity were observed, suggesting that NAFLD status was mild. In contrast, we observed drastic up-regulation of circulating miR-122 levels. Our findings suggest that serum miR-122 level is indeed useful for assessing early NAFLD and might be superior to clinical markers traditionally used to monitor hepatic disease. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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