Paola Piscopo1, Eleonora Lacorte2, Marco Feligioni3, Flavia Mayer2, Alessio Crestini4, Laura Piccolo5, Ilaria Bacigalupo2, Melania Filareti5, Elena Ficulle5, Annamaria Confaloni4, Nicola Vanacore2, Massimo Corbo5. 1. Dept of Neuroscience, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161 Rome, Italy. Electronic address: paola.piscopo@iss.it. 2. National Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161 Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa Cura Policlinico, Via Dezza 48, 20144, Milano, Italy; European Brain Research Institute Rita Levi-Montalcini Foundation (EBRI), Via del Fosso di Fiorano 64-65, 00143 Rome, Italy. 4. Dept of Neuroscience, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161 Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa Cura Policlinico, Via Dezza 48, 20144, Milano, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is usually described as an intermediate phase between normal cognition and dementia. Identifying the subjects at a higher risk of progressing from MCI to AD is essential to manage this condition. The diagnosis of MCI is mainly clinical. Several biomarkers have been proposed, but mostly for research purposes, as they are based on an invasive procedure to obtain the sample, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). As a consequence, rapid and non-invasive biomarkers are needed to improve diagnosis. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize available evidence on the use of miRNAs as biomarkers in subjects with MCI. METHODS: Relevant literature published up to June 2018 was retrieved searching the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Database. Only studies considering microRNAs (miRNAs) and a diagnosis of MCI were included. Data were extracted using a specifically-designed standardized form, and their methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 and QUIPS. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies of 153 retrieved articles met the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies included participants ranging from 6 to 330. More than 40 miRNAs resulted as dysregulated, and miR-206 was the only miRNA that was found as differentially expressed in patients with MCI by more than two studies. However, these results have either not yet been confirmed in other independent cohorts, or data are still inconsistent. Inconsistencies among included studies could be due to several issues including the selection of participants, pre-analytical and analytical procedures, and statistical analyses.
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is usually described as an intermediate phase between normal cognition and dementia. Identifying the subjects at a higher risk of progressing from MCI to AD is essential to manage this condition. The diagnosis of MCI is mainly clinical. Several biomarkers have been proposed, but mostly for research purposes, as they are based on an invasive procedure to obtain the sample, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). As a consequence, rapid and non-invasive biomarkers are needed to improve diagnosis. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize available evidence on the use of miRNAs as biomarkers in subjects with MCI. METHODS: Relevant literature published up to June 2018 was retrieved searching the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Database. Only studies considering microRNAs (miRNAs) and a diagnosis of MCI were included. Data were extracted using a specifically-designed standardized form, and their methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 and QUIPS. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies of 153 retrieved articles met the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies included participants ranging from 6 to 330. More than 40 miRNAs resulted as dysregulated, and miR-206 was the only miRNA that was found as differentially expressed in patients with MCI by more than two studies. However, these results have either not yet been confirmed in other independent cohorts, or data are still inconsistent. Inconsistencies among included studies could be due to several issues including the selection of participants, pre-analytical and analytical procedures, and statistical analyses.
Authors: Anna Morozova; Yana Zorkina; Olga Abramova; Olga Pavlova; Konstantin Pavlov; Kristina Soloveva; Maria Volkova; Polina Alekseeva; Alisa Andryshchenko; Georgiy Kostyuk; Olga Gurina; Vladimir Chekhonin Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Joseph M Gullett; Zhaoyi Chen; Andrew O'Shea; Maisha Akbar; Jiang Bian; Asha Rani; Eric C Porges; Thomas C Foster; Adam J Woods; Francois Modave; Ronald A Cohen Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Iman I Salama; Samia M Sami; Ghada A Abdellatif; Amira Mohsen; Hanaa Rasmy; Solaf Ahmed Kamel; Mona Hamed Ibrahim; Mona Mostafa; Walaa A Fouad; Hala M Raslan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Iman I Salama; Somaia I Salama; Dalia M Elmosalami; Rehan M Saleh; Hanaa Rasmy; Mona Hamed Ibrahim; Solaf Ahmed Kamel; Mona M F Ganem; Hala M Raslan Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci Date: 2019-10-12