4.8 Article

Gene expression comparison of biopsies from Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and normal skeletal muscle

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.192571199

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01 HL066582, U01 HL066582-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR44349] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [P01 NS040828, 5 P01NS40828-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary cause of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMID) is a mutation in the dystrophin gene leading to the absence of the corresponding RNA transcript and protein. Absence of dystrophin leads to disruption of the dystrophin-associated protein complex and substantial changes in skeletal muscle pathology. Although the histological pathology of dystrophic tissue has been well documented, the underlying molecular pathways remain poorly understood. To examine the pathogenic pathways and identify new or modifying factors involved in muscular dystrophy, expression microarrays were used to compare individual gene expression profiles of skeletal muscle biopsies from 12 DMD patients and 12 unaffected control patients. Two separate statistical analysis methods were used to interpret the resulting data: t test analysis to determine the statistical significance of differential expression and geometric fold change analysis to determine the extent of differential expression. These analyses identified 105 genes that differ significantly in expression level between unaffected and DMID muscle. Many of the differentially expressed genes reflect changes in histological pathology. For instance, immune response signals and extracellular matrix genes are overexpressed in DMD muscle, an indication of the infiltration of inflammatory cells and connective tissue. Significantly more genes are overexpressed than are underexpressed in dystrophic muscle, with dystrophic underexpressed, whereas other genes encoding muscle structure and regeneration processes are overexpressed, reflecting the regenerative nature of the disease.

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

4.8
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