Exploring the Potential Use of Non-coding RNAs as Possible Biomarkers for Glioma. Literature Review
Résumé fourni par la source
Glioblastoma (GBM) is considered the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a high recurrence rate after treatment. Despite recent advances in molecular biology, the exact genetic and epigenetic pathways involved in gliomagenesis are not fully understood. Additionally, physicians currently lack robust non-invasive methods to diagnose and predict glioma with high accuracy. Cancer biomarkers, such as DNA, RNA, transcription factors, cell surface receptors, enzymes, and metabolites, can be found in tumor tissue, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and/or blood, and are currently being investigated to overcome these challenges. Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) are new classes of regulatory RNA that recently attracted attention due to their role in cancer and other diseases. ncRNAs are involved in tumor formation, invasion, and progression stages. They also regulate the cell cycle, apoptosis, autophagy, stemness, angiogenesis, blood-tumor-brain barrier integrity, and tumor metabolism. Expression levels of ncRNAs can be related to tumor grade, survival, treatment response (chemotherapeutic drugs or radiotherapy), and could determine overall prognosis. Therefore, the circulatory or local levels of these molecules could serve as real-time biomarkers. Here, we highlight the possible different non-coding RNAs that could be detected in the tissues of patients with glioma and their possible clinical applications as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Keywords: Glioma, ncRNAS; Prognosis; microRNAs
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Exploring the Potential Use of Non-coding RNAs as Possible Biomarkers for Glioma. Literature Review
- Date Crossref
- 29/03/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.