4.7 Article

Plasma long non-coding RNA, CoroMarker, a novel biomarker for diagnosis of coronary artery disease

期刊

CLINICAL SCIENCE
卷 129, 期 8, 页码 675-685

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/CS20150121

关键词

cardiac biomarkers; circulating lncRNA; coronary artery disease; diagnosis; long non-coding RNA

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31430043, 31471089]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been reported to be involved in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but whether circulating lncRNAs can serve as a coronary artery disease (CAD), biomarker is not known. The present study screened lncRNAs by microarray analysis in the plasma from CAD patients and control individuals and found that 265 lncRNAs were differentially expressed. To find specific lncRNAs as possible CAD biomarker candidates, we used the following criteria for 174 up-regulated lncRNAs: signal intensity >= 8, fold change >2.5 and P < 0.005. According to these criteria, five intergenic lncRNAs were identified. After validation by quantitative PCR (qPCR), one lncRNA was excluded from the candidate list. The remaining four lncRNAs were independently validated in another population of 20 CAD patients and 20 control individuals. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that lncRNA AC100865.1 (referred to as CoroMarker) was the best of these lncRNAs. CoroMarker levels were also stable in plasma. The predictive value of CoroMarker was further assessed in a larger cohort with 221 CAD patients and 187 control individuals. Using a diagnostic model with Fisher's criteria, taking the risk factors into account, the optimal sensitivity of CoroMarker for CAD increased from 68.29% to 78.05%, whereas the specificity decreased slightly from 91.89% to 86.49%. CoroMarker was stable in plasma because it was mainly in the extracellular vesicles (EVs), probably from monocytes. We conclude that CoroMarker is a stable, sensitive and specific biomarker for CAD.

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