Why the study?
Benefits of CABG are mitigated by ischemia-reperfusion injury, and translation of animal research into the clinic has been disappointing.
This bioinformatics analysis identifies potential hub genes, miRNAs, and transcription factors involved in ischemia-reperfusion injury during CABG surgery, providing targets for future translational research.
Hypothesis-generating for miRNA/TF targeting in CABG IRI; requires validation before any clinical translation.
BACKGROUND: Although coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is the main method to revascularize the occluded coronary vessels in coronary artery diseases, the full benefits of the operation are mitigated by ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury. Although many studies have been devoted to reducing IR injury in animal models, the translation of this research into the clinical field has been disappointing. Our study aimed to explore the underlying hub genes and mechanisms of IR injury. METHODS: A weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was executed based on the expression profiles in patients undergoing CABG surgery (GSE29396). Functional annotation and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network construction were executed within the modules of interest. Potential hub genes were predicted, combining both intramodular connectivity (IC) and degrees. Meanwhile, potential transcription factors (TFs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) were predicted by corresponding bioinformatics tools. RESULTS: ) were predicted. Predicted miRNAs (hsa-miR-333-5p, hsa-miR-26b-5p, hsa-miR-124-3p, hsa-miR-16-5p, hsa-miR-98-5p, hsa-miR-17-5p, hsa-miR-93-5p) and TF (STAT1) might have regulated gene expression in the most positively related module, while hsa-miR-333-5p and HSF-1 were predicted to regulate the genes within the most negatively related module. CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates an overview of gene expression changes in human atrial samples from patients undergoing CABG surgery and might help translate future research into clinical work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: