Why the study?
Does knockdown of lncRNA fantom3_F730004F19 reduce inflammation in early brain injury following experimental subarachnoid haemorrhage?
Does knockdown of lncRNA fantom3_F730004F19 reduce inflammation in early brain injury following experimental subarachnoid haemorrhage?
LncRNA fantom3_F730004F19 is upregulated in early brain injury after subarachnoid hemorrhage and its knockdown attenuates microglia-induced inflammation via the TLR4/CD14 pathway in vitro.
Differentially expressed lncRNAs identified in murine SAH; leaves open their mechanistic roles in EBI and clinical translation pending validation.
Subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) is a fatal neurovascular disease following cerebral aneurysm rupture with high morbidity and mortality rates. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a type of mammalian genome transcript, are abundantly expressed in the brain and are involved in many nervous system diseases. However, little is currently known regarding the influence of lncRNAs in early brain injury (EBI) after SAH. This study analysed the expression profiles of lncRNAs and mRNAs in SAH brain tissues of mice using high-throughput sequencing. The results showed a remarkable difference in lncRNA and mRNA transcripts between SAH and control brains. Approximately 617 lncRNA transcripts and 441 mRNA transcripts were aberrantly expressed at 24 hours after SAH. Gene ontology (GO) enrichment and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis indicated that the differentially expressed mRNAs were mostly involved in inflammation. Based on the lncRNA/mRNA co-expression network, knockdown of fantom3_F730004F19 reduced the mRNA and protein levels of CD14 and toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and attenuated inflammation in BV-2 microglia cells. These results indicate that lncRNA fantom3_F730004F19 may be associated with microglia induced inflammation via the TLR signaling pathway in EBI following SAH. LncRNA represent a potential therapeutic target for the prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of SAH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: