| Literature DB >> 32352013 |
Caihong Liang1, Lulu Zhang2, Xiaoqing Lian1, Tiantian Zhu1, Yuqing Zhang1, Ning Gu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Critical roles of circulating exosomal long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been implicated in multiple diseases. However, little is known about their roles in coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships between circulating exosomal lncRNAs and CAD and identify the aberrantly expressed disease-related lncRNAs as biomarkers in diagnosing CAD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32352013 PMCID: PMC7171639 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9182091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Hierarchical clustering analysis for specific lncRNAs (75 lncRNAs were upregulated and 52 lncRNAs were downregulated) in plasma exosomes from coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (criteria: fold change ≥2 or fold change ≤0.5; P < 0.05). P, Patient; C, Control.
Figure 2Volcano plot analysis of the microarray chip data on the differentially expressed plasma exosomal lncRNAs between coronary artery disease (CAD) patients and controls. The vertical white line corresponds to a 2.0-fold up- and downregulation while the horizontal white line represents a P value of 0.05. The red and blue dots indicate more than a 2.0-fold change and represent the differentially expressed genes with statistical significance.
The expression profile of lncRNA candidates in plasma exosomes of CAD patients compared with controls by microarray.
| LncRNAs | Fold change |
| Regulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lnc-USP9Y-16 : 1 | 0.476985 | 0.000144 | Down |
| Lnc-STXBP6-5 : 1 | 0.451161 | 0.000812 | Down |
| Lnc-ATG2B-3 : 2 | 0.452216 | 0.004192 | Down |
| Lnc-PIGP-5 : 2 | 2.138978 | 0.006523 | Up |
| Lnc-C22orf34-8 : 2 | 2.500921 | 0.007907 | Up |
| AC017053.1 | 0.46897 | 0.008938 | Down |
| NONHSAT096303 | 0.436393 | 0.009256 | Down |
| SOCS2-AS1 | 0.452054 | 0.014885 | Down |
| Lnc-TM2D2-2 : 1 | 0.402779 | 0.017852 | Down |
| Lnc-SOX1-4 : 6 | 0.432825 | 0.02561 | Down |
| RP11-527J8.1 | 0.494858 | 0.02578 | Down |
| Lnc-MRPL10-1 : 2 | 0.491939 | 0.028083 | Down |
| RP4-781K5.4 | 0.463193 | 0.030257 | Down |
| Lnc-NAPEPLD-5 : 6 | 0.413648 | 0.030533 | Down |
| NONHSAT120351 | 0.478036 | 0.03698 | Down |
| NONHSAT138339 | 2.255479 | 0.040974 | Up |
Figure 3Validation of differentially expressed plasma exosomal miRNAs by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). (a) Relative expression of AC017053.1 in plasma exosomes from 24 CAD patients and 24 controls. (b) Relative expression of NONHSAT138339 in plasma exosomes from 24 CAD patients and 24 controls. (c) Relative expression of SOCS2-AS1 in plasma exosomes from 24 CAD patients and 24 controls. (d) Relative expression of SOCS2-AS1 in plasma exosomes from 84 CAD patients, 48 mCAS patients, and 41 controls. (e) Relative expression of SOCS2-AS1 in plasma exosomes from the stenosis group (merged 84 CAD patients and 48 mCAS patients) and 41 controls. P < 0.05; & P < 0.01.
Correlations between plasma exosome-encapsulated SOCS2-AS1 level with clinical characteristics.
| Variables | Pearson correlation | Partial correlation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| PLT | −0.166 | 0.029 | −0.186 | 0.020 | ||||
| Lpa | −0.184 | 0.016 | −0.181 | 0.022 | −0.168 | 0.036 | ||
| TC | −0.037 | 0.627 | −0.015 | 0.855 | ||||
| TG | −0.046 | 0.548 | −0.054 | 0.496 | ||||
| HDL-C | 0.055 | 0.471 | 0.025 | 0.758 | ||||
| LDL-C | −0.072 | 0.348 | −0.031 | 0.698 | ||||
| Age | −0.145 | 0.057 | ||||||
| Gender | −0.025 | 0.748 | ||||||
| Smoking | −0.076 | 0.322 | ||||||
| Hypertension | −0.127 | 0.097 | ||||||
| FBG | −0.027 | 0.722 | ||||||
| Diabetes | −0.051 | 0.506 | ||||||
| BUN | −0.024 | 0.753 | ||||||
| Cr | −0.040 | 0.602 | ||||||
| UA | −0.142 | 0.063 | ||||||
| FIB | −0.022 | 0.766 | ||||||
| INR | −0.046 | 0.547 | ||||||
| CRP | −0.049 | 0.518 | ||||||
CRP: C-reaction protein; PLT: Platelet; FIB, Fibrinogen; INR: International Normalized Ratio; BUN, Blood Urea Nitrogen; Cr: Creatinine; FBG: Fasting Blood Glucose; UA: Uric Acid; TC, Total Cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: High Density Lipoprotein-cholesterol; LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein-cholesterol; Lpa: Lipoprotein a. The model 1 control Age, Gender, Smoking, Hypertension, Diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, FIB, INR, CRP, and PLT; The model 2 control Age, Gender, Smoking, Hypertension, Diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, FIB, INR, CRP, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, and PLT; The model 3 control Age, Gender, Smoking, Hypertension, Diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, FIB, INR, CRP, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, and Lpa. P < 0.05.
Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis for the risk of CAD.
| Models | OR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | 0.328 | 0.173–0.623 | 0.001& |
| Multiple logistic regression model1 | 0.350 | 0.175–0.701 | 0.003& |
| Multiple logistic regression model2 | 0.352 | 0.173–0.714 | 0.004& |
| Multiple logistic regression model3 | 0.337 | 0.163–0.697 | 0.003& |
| Multiple logistic regression model4 | 0.335 | 0.157–0.714 | 0.005& |
| Multiple logistic regression model5 | 0.323 | 0.146–0.717 | 0.005& |
| Multiple logistic regression model6 | 0.291 | 0.116–0.731 | 0.009& |
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. The model1 included age, gender, smoking, and SOCS2-AS1 level; The model2 included age, gender, smoking, hypertension, and SOCS2-AS1 level; The model3 included age, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, FBG, and SOCS2-AS1 level; The model4 included age, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, and SOCS2-AS1 level; The model5 included age, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, CRP, PLT, FIB, INR and SOCS2-AS1 level; The model6 included age, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, FBG, BUN, Cr, UA, CRP, PLT, FIB, INR, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, Lpa, and SOCS2-AS1 level. &P < 0.01.
The clinical relevance analysis of SOCS2-AS1 expression levels in CAD patients.
| Feather | Lower expression ( | Higher expression ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.778 | ||
| ≤60 | 15 | 4 | |
| >60 | 47 | 18 | |
|
| |||
| Gender | 0.176 | ||
| Male | 38 | 17 | |
| Female | 24 | 5 | |
|
| |||
| Smoking | 0.904 | ||
| Yes | 12 | 4 | |
| No | 50 | 18 | |
|
| |||
| Hypertension | 0.622 | ||
| Yes | 43 | 14 | |
| No | 19 | 8 | |
|
| |||
| Diabetes | 0.861 | ||
| Yes | 21 | 7 | |
| No | 41 | 15 | |
|
| |||
| Lesion artery number | 0.154 | ||
| Single | 23 | 12 | |
| Multi | 39 | 10 | |
|
| |||
| Severity of artery stenosis | 0.569 | ||
| Severe | 44 | 17 | |
| Slight | 18 | 5 | |
| CRP (mg/L) | 13.87 ± 28.43 | 9.93 ± 15.45 | 0.538 |
| PLT (109/L) | 182.37 ± 50.77 | 141.50 ± 47.39 | 0.001& |
| FIB (g/L) | 2.63 ± 0.92 | 2.43 ± 0.86 | 0.384 |
| INR | 1.04 ± 0.76 | 1.08 ± 0.78 | 0.053 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.95 ± 2.15 | 6.51 ± 2.68 | 0.331 |
| Cr ( | 83.22 ± 47.97 | 116.94 ± 159.77 | 0.340 |
| FBG (mmol/L) | 6.44 ± 2.10 | 7.71 ± 4.02 | 0.169 |
| UA ( | 350.92 ± 79.42 | 341.82 ± 88.51 | 0.655 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.34 ± 1.05 | 4.06 ± 1.02 | 0.275 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 2.13 ± 2.21 | 1.83 ± 1.10 | 0.544 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.27 ± 0.30 | 1.25 ± 0.25 | 0.793 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.31 ± 0.74 | 2.11 ± 0.74 | 0.292 |
| Lpa (mg/L) | 267.75 ± 228.25 | 179.85 ± 275.71 | 0.146 |
CRP: C-reaction protein; PLT: Platelet; FIB: Fibrinogen; INR: International Normalized Ratio; BUN: Blood Urea Nitrogen; Cr: Creatinine; FBG: Fasting Blood Glucose; UA: Uric Acid; TC: Total Cholesterol; TG: Triglyceride; HDL-C: High Density Lipoprotein-cholesterol; LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein-cholesterol; Lpa: Lipoprotein a. &P < 0.01.
Figure 4The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses for plasma exosomal SOCS2-AS1 as a diagnostic biomarker of CAD. (a) The area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.704 (95% CI = 0.607–0.801, P < 0.001) for diagnosis of CAD patients. The sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off were 71.4% and 63.4%. (b) The AUC was 0.709 (95% CI = 0.607–0.811, P < 0.001) for diagnosing severe subgroup of CAD patients (≥75% luminal stenosis of any coronary vessel). The sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off were 67.2% and 68.3%. (c) The AUC was 0.698 (95% CI = 0.588–0.807, P=0.001) for diagnosis of mild coronary artery stenosis (mCAS) patients (50% ≥ luminal stenosis of any coronary vessel >0). The sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off were 72.9% and 63.4%.