↓ Skip to main content

Identification in GRMD dog muscle of critical miRNAs involved in pathophysiology and effects associated with MuStem cell transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identification in GRMD dog muscle of critical miRNAs involved in pathophysiology and effects associated with MuStem cell transplantation
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1060-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florence Robriquet, Candice Babarit, Thibaut Larcher, Laurence Dubreil, Mireille Ledevin, Hélicia Goubin, Karl Rouger, Laëtitia Guével

Abstract

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked muscle disease that leads to fibre necrosis and progressive paralysis. At present, DMD remains a lethal disease without any effective treatment, requiring a better understanding of the pathophysiological processes and comprehensive assessment of the newly identified therapeutic strategies. MicroRNAs including members of the muscle-specific myomiR family have been identified as being deregulated in muscle of DMD patients and in mdx mice used as a model for DMD. In recent years, the Golden Retriever muscular dystrophy (GRMD) dog has appeared as the crucial animal model for objectively assessing the potential of new innovative approaches. Here, we first aim at establishing the muscle expression pattern of five selected miRNAs in this clinically relevant model to determine if they are similarly affected compared with other DMD contexts. Second, we attempt to show whether these miRNAs could be impacted by the systemic delivery of a promising stem cell candidate (referred to as MuStem cells) to implement our knowledge on its mode of action and/or identify markers associated with cell therapy efficacy. A comparative study of miRNAs expression levels and cellular localization was performed on 9-month-old healthy dogs, as well as on three sub-sets of GRMD dog (without immunosuppression or cell transplantation, with continuous immunosuppressive regimen and with MuStem cell transplantation under immunosuppression), using RT-qPCR and in situ hybridization. We find that miR-222 expression is markedly up-regulated in GRMD dog muscle compared to healthy dog, while miR-486 tends to be down-expressed. Intriguingly, the expression of miR-1, miR-133a and miR-206 does not change. In situ hybridization exploration reveals, for the first time, that miR-486 and miR-206 are mainly localized in newly regenerated fibres in GRMD dog muscle. In addition, we show that cyclosporine-based immunosuppression, classically used in allogeneic cell transplantation, exclusively impacts the miR-206 expression. Finally, we demonstrate that intra-arterial administration of MuStem cells results in up-regulation of miR-133a and miR-222 concomitantly with a down-expression of two sarcomeric proteins corresponding to miR-222 targets. We point out a differential muscle expression of miR-222 and miR-486 associated with the pathophysiology of the clinically relevant GRMD dog model with a tissue localization focused on regenerated fibres. We also establish a modified expression of miR-133a and miR-222 subsequent to MuStem cell infusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,373,286
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,458
of 4,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,838
of 309,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#57
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.