4.2 Article

Circulating lncRNA ANRIL in the Serum of Patients with Ischemic Stroke

期刊

CLINICAL LABORATORY
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 1459-1465

出版社

CLIN LAB PUBL
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2019.190143

关键词

circulating ANRIL; ischemic stroke; serum; hs-CRP; MMP-9

资金

  1. Jining Science and Technology Development Plan Project [[2016]56-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The current study aims to investigate the expression of antisense noncoding RNA in the INK4 locus (ANRIL) in serum of patients with ischemic stroke and its correlation with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9). Methods: Real time PCR analysis was carried out to evaluate the level of ANRIL. The levels of hs-CRP and MMP-9 were evaluated using ELISA. ROC analysis was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic value of ANRIL, hs-CRP and MMP-9. Pearson's correlation analysis was carried out to evaluate the expression of ANRIL in serum of hs-CRP and MMP-9. Results: Our data showed that the expression levels of ANRIL, hs-CRP, and MMP-9 in serum of the patients were significantly higher than those of the control group (p < 0.05). Pearson's correlation analysis showed that there was a positive correlation between the expression of ANRIL and hs-CRP and MMP-9. Meanwhile, serum levels of ANRIL, hs-CRP, and MMP-9 in patients with severe neurological deficits were significantly higher than those in patients with moderate and mild neurological deficits (p < 0.05). Moreover, the expression levels of ANRIL, hs-CRP, and MMP-9 in serum of patients with different degrees of neurological impairment have different correlations. More importantly, ROC analysis demonstrated that the combined use of ANRIL, hs-CRP, and MMP-9 demonstrated higher diagnostic value for stroke patients. Conclusions: Serum ANRIL may be used as a molecular marker in the diagnosis of ischemic stroke and may play an important role in the pathogenesis and development of ischemic stroke in cooperation with hs-CRP and MMP-9.

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

4.2
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