4.7 Article

MicroRNA Changes in Cerebrospinal Fluid After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

期刊

STROKE
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 2391-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017804

关键词

brain injuries; cerebrospinal fluid; microRNAs; real-time polymerase chain reaction; stroke; subarachnoid hemorrhage

资金

  1. Research Board at Copenhagen University Hospital
  2. Rigshospitalet
  3. The Lundbeck Foundation
  4. Grosserer Jakob Ehrenreich & Hustru Grete Ehrenreichs Fond
  5. Brodrene Hartmanns Fond
  6. Torben & Alice Frimodts Fond
  7. Grosserer L. F. Foghts Fond
  8. Aase & Ejnar Danielsens Fond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) accounts for a major part of the morbidity and mortality after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are pathophysiologically involved in acute cerebral ischemia. This study compared miRNA profiles in cerebrospinal fluid from neurologically healthy patients, as well as SAH patients with and without subsequent development of DCI. Methods-In a prospective case-control study of SAH patients treated with external ventricular drainage and neurologically healthy patients, miRNA profiles in cerebrospinal fluid were screened and validated using 2 different high-throughput real-time quantification polymerase chain reaction techniques. The occurrence of DCI was documented in patient charts and subsequently reviewed independently by 2 physicians. Results-MiRNA profiles from 27 SAH patients and 10 neurologically healthy patients passed quality control. In the validation, 66 miRNAs showed a relative increase in cerebrospinal fluid from SAH patients compared with neurologically healthy patients (P<0.001); 2 (miR-21 and miR-221) showed a relative increase in SAH patients with DCI compared with those without (P<0.05) in both the screening and validation. Conclusions-SAH is associated with marked changes in the cerebrospinal fluid miRNA profile. These changes could be associated to the development of DCI.

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