Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Diagnostic significance of circulating miRNAs in systemic lupus erythematosus

  • Xiaolan Zheng,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Writing – original draft

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Yi Zhang,

    Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Peng Yue,

    Roles Formal analysis

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Lei Liu,

    Roles Formal analysis, Software

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Chuan Wang,

    Roles Methodology, Software, Validation

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Kaiyu Zhou,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Yimin Hua,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Gang Wu,

    Roles Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯
  • Yifei Li

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    liyfwcsh@scu.edu.cn

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Women and Children's Diseases and Birth Defects, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

In recent years, many studies focused on the association between the microRNAs (miRNAs) and the risk of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), especially miRNA-21 (miR-21). We aimed to investigate the role of circulating miRNAs, especially the miR-21, as a biomarker in detecting SLE.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure through Mar 3th, 2019. We performed this meta-analysis in a fixed/random-effect model using Meta-disc 1.4 and STATA 15.1.

Results

A total of 17 relevant studies were eligible to analyze pooled accuracy. The overall performance of total mixed miRNAs (TmiRs) detection was: pooled sensitivity, 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.72); pooled specificity, 0.81 (95%CI, 0.79 to 0.83); and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves value (SROC), 0.8797. The miR-21 detection was: pooled sensitivity, 0.68 (95%CI, 0.62 to 0.74); pooled specificity, 0.77 (95%CI, 0.69 to 0.84); and SROC, 0.8281. The meta-regression analysis showed that the type of samples was the sources of heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis suggested that detection in plasma group had the largest AUC of SROC in all the subgroups: pooled sensitivity, 0.8 (95%CI, 0.78 to 0.82); pooled specificity, 0.83 (95%CI, 0.8 to 0.86); and SROC, 0.9068.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that circulating miRNAs might be potential novel biomarkers for detecting SLE, especially miR-21. Moreover, plasma is recommended as the clinical specimen for diagnostic detection.

Citation: Zheng X, Zhang Y, Yue P, Liu L, Wang C, Zhou K, et al. (2019) Diagnostic significance of circulating miRNAs in systemic lupus erythematosus. PLoS ONE 14(6): e0217523. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523

Editor: Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul, Chulalongkorn University, THAILAND

Received: April 7, 2019; Accepted: May 13, 2019; Published: June 4, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China 81700360 to Yifei Li, National Natural Science Foundation of China 81741025 to Kaiyu Zhou, National Natural Science Foundation of China 81570369 to Kaiyu Zhou, National Natural Science Foundation of China 81571515 to Yimin Hua, and Technology Project of Sichuan Province of China 2018JY0603 to Yi Zhang.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex, chronic, potentially fatal, multisystem autoimmune disease, which predominantly affects women between puberty and menopause [1]. The major pathogenetic mechanisms of SLE include an inappropriate immune response to the nucleic acid containing cellular particles, which is caused by an autoimmune reaction of the innate and adaptive immune systems, leading to damage structures of the skin, joints, kidney and central nervous system [2, 3]. Mortality in SLE patients has improved over the past 30 years but remains considerably higher than in people from the same geographical area without SLE [4]. Delay in diagnosis is associated with increased damage to vital organs [5]. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of SLE is mainly according to the revised American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria, which is made based on clinical manifestations and laboratory tests [6]. Laboratory tests, such as Complement (C3, C4), and antibodies (ANA, dsDNA, ACL, etc.) have although been demonstrated have potential as SLE diagnostic biomarkers, but none of them can accurately diagnose SLE [7–10]. The diagnosis of SLE is very challenging because there are no generally accepted diagnostic criteria [2]. Therefore, it is important to find novel and reliable circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of SLE.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of endogenously small noncoding RNAs with approximately 18–25 nucleotides in length [11], and may inhibit protein translation or degrading the polypeptides via binding to the untranslated regions of mRNA [12]. Previous studies [13–15] have found that circulating miRNAs can be considered as potential biomarkers for detecting kinds of diseases, including autoimmune diseases. In 2011, Stagaki et al. [16] suggested that miRNA-21 (miR-21) was a potential biomarker for SLE. Since then, a series of studies [17–21] have also verified the role of miR-21 in SLE. In addition, these studies [18–21] have found other miRNAs (miR-155, -181a, -196a, -31, and -148a) dysregulated in SLE. Dai et al [22] carried out a meta-analysis to verify the diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as potential biomarkers for SLE. However, many new studies focused on the association between the miRNAs and the risk of SLE were reported in recent years, especially the relationship between miR-21and SLE. Therefore, we collected all published case-control studies to gather evidence on how the diagnostic performance of miRNAs, especially miR-21, distinguished SLE.

Materials and methods

Study protocol

This analysis was performed by a predetermined protocol following the recommendations of Deeks [23]. The data collection and reporting accorded with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement (S1 Table) [24]. The ethical approval was not necessary due to it is systematic literature research.

Search strategy

We searched multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure through Mar 3th, 2019 to identify relevant studies. Keyword search terms were (‘systemic lupus erythematosus’ OR ‘lupus erythematosus’ OR ‘lupus nephritis‘) AND (‘MicroRNAs’ OR ‘MicroRNA’ OR ‘miRNAs’ OR ‘miRNA’). PubMed database was searched as follows: (Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic[MeSH Terms] OR systemic lupus erythematosus OR lupus erythematosus OR lupus nephritis) AND (MicroRNAs[MeSH Terms] OR MicroRNA OR miRNAs OR miRNA). Search terms for EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure with corresponding publication numbers can be found in the S1 Appendix. Language was limited only in English.

Study selection

Reports were preliminarily screened by title and abstract and when initially selected by the systematic search. Potentially relevant studies were then retrieved by full manuscripts and assessed for compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Criteria for inclusion: (1) all patients of SLE were confirmed by SLE diagnosis criteria; (2) randomized controlled or non- randomized controlled, clinical trials, cohort studies evaluating the expression of miRNAs; (3) contained the data of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative; or the data of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and essential sample size; (4) all studies had healthy controls; (5) real-time PCR (RT-PCR), qRT-PCR, microarray, and miRNA sequence were acceptable methods to evaluate the expressions of miRNAs; (6) full text published in English.

Criteria for Exclusion: (1) patients with malignant tumors or other autoimmune diseases; (2) conferences articles, reviews, letters, or case reports without controls; (3) no available data to construct a 2×2 table; (4) duplicated reports.

Data collection and assessment of study quality

Two investigators (Xiaolan Zheng, Yi Zhang) screened and assessed the eligibility of reports at the title and/or abstract level independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria., and a third reviewer (Yifei Li) determining the divergences according to inclusion or exclusion criteria, and the quality of reports; studies that met all the inclusion criteria were selected for further analysis. According to the 14-item Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) list [25], the quality assessment of all enrolled studies was independently conducted by two investigators (Xiaolan Zheng, Peng Yue), and any disagreement was settled by discussion. As a well-conducted study might score poorly once related parts were missing among the methods and results so that all the assessments were only reported in descriptive forms. We used Photoshop CS6 (Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd) to extract data from the figures. By Photoshop CS6, we were able to set axes and identify the abscissa and ordinate of each point. Finally, two investigators (Xiaolan Zheng, Lei Liu) extracted the date which can calculate true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative, such as sensitivity, specificity, and essential sample size.

Evaluation indicators

The following indicators of different types of miRNAs were measured: sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves value (SROC). Sensitivity was represented by the proportion of patients with SLE that was correctly identified by the positive results of miRNAs expression. Specificity was represented by the non-SLE cases that were correctly identified by the negative results of miRNAs. DOR was an independent indicator from 0 to infinity, indicating that patients with positive test results are much more likely to have SLE than patients with negative test results. The higher the DOR, the better the discriminatory ability of the test was [26]. The SROC was plotted according to the combination of sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) value was then calculated as a global measurement of test performance. The closer the AUC was to 1, the better the test performance [27].

Publication bias

We used Stata statistical software (STATA, version 15.1) to obtain a quantitative analysis of all the publication bias according to funnel plots and the Deek’s test. An asymmetric distribution of data points in the funnel plot with a quantified result of P < .05 indicated the presence of potential publication bias [28].

Heterogeneity and meta-regression

Heterogeneity of pooling sensitivity and specificity was examined by the x2 test. Heterogeneity of pooling DOR was examined by the Cochran Q test. Heterogeneity was considered as statistically significant when P < .05. The I2 test was also performed in every pooling analysis in order to quantitatively estimate the proportion of total variation across studies, which was attributable to heterogeneity rather than chance. The I2 value would range from 0 to 100%, with values of 25, 50, and 75% considered as evidence of low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively [29]. A curvilinear shape in the SROCs indicated the presence of a threshold effect. Furthermore, we carried out the meta-regression analysis using STATA 15.1 to detect where the potential factor for heterogeneity origin from.

Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis

Sensitivity analysis was conducted for every study to determine the influence of individual trials on the results, using STATA 15.1 for meta-analysis fixed/random-effects estimates. Meta-Disc 1.4 was used to detect threshold effects in studies and conduct subgroup analysis.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis and threshold analysis was performed with Meta-Disc Version 1.4 [30]. Besides, publication bias was conducted by STATA Version 15.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Homogenous results utilized the fixed effects model for statistical analysis, while the heterogeneous (I2 > 50%) results utilized random effects model and the data were presented using a forest map.

Results

Search results

Initially, 1301 potentially relevant papers were retrieved by the search method aforementioned, of which 33 articles were considered to be interested after reading titles and abstracts. However, five articles were excluded by reading their complete articles due to article types, seven studies lacked available data to construct a 2×2 table, and four articles lacked a comparison between SLE patients and healthy controls. Finally, 17 studies [17–21, 31–42] were included in the meta-analysis. The process of study selection was illustrated in Fig 1. Except the study of Zununi Vahed et al. [42] is a cross-sectional trial, all others are prospective trials. Among them, 41 individual diagnostic tests were extracted for total mixed miRNA (TmiR) evaluation; five individual diagnostic tests were extracted for miR-21 evaluation, 36 individual diagnostic tests were enrolled for total mixed miRNA knock out miR-21 (TmiRs-KO-21) evaluation. Additionally, the sample types of nine studies were plasma, five studies were peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC), and the remaining three studies were serum. Moreover, there are ten reports from China, in which ethnicity can be defined as Mongoloid; and seven studies from other different countries (two from Iran, one from Bulgaria, three from Egypt, and one from Colombia), in which ethnicity can be defined as Caucasian. Besides, the SLE sample size of 13 studies were much smaller (n < 100) compared the remaining four (n ≥ 100). The basic characteristics of the included studies was shown in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of studies in meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.t001

Study quality

The quality assessment of the included studies was accomplished by using the QUADAS list of questions, and the results were shown in Table 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. QUADAS criteria of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.t002

Diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs

Total mixed miRNAs.

The overall diagnostic measurement in detecting SLE of TmiRs has been summarized in Fig 2. The summary sensitivity was 0.71 (95%CI, 0.69 to 0.72), and the pooled estimation showed significant heterogeneity (P = .0000, x2 = 397.7, I2 = 89.9%) (Fig 2A). Meanwhile, the summary specificity was 0.81 (95%CI, 0.79 to 0.83), and the pooled estimation also showed noticeable heterogeneity (P = .0000, x2 = 132.17, I2 = 69.7%) (Fig 2B). In addition, the pooled DOR and the SROCs showed in Fig 2C and 2D. The pooled DOR was 16.64 (95% CI, 12.08 to 22.93) with significant heterogeneity (P = .0000, Cochran-Q = 132.28, I2 = 69.8%). The calculated AUC value was 0.8797±0.0147. The absence of a curvilinear shape in the SROC suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect. Next, we carried out the meta-regression analysis to identify the potential factors that might cause the heterogeneities. The meta-regression could determine the correlation between the potential factors and the existing heterogeneities. When a significant difference was discovered, the factor should have a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies with a P value <0.05. After reviewing the baseline data and the original data producing procedure, the types of sample, ethnicity, and SLE sample sizes were taken into account in the meta-regression to detect the origins of heterogeneities. According to the results (Fig 3), the type of samples might be the sources of heterogeneity, P = .036, t = -2.17, 95%CI (0.30, 0.96) (Fig 3A). Besides, the ethnicity of studies is not a dramatic impact factor on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = .056, t = -1.97, 95%CI (0.20, 1.02) (Fig 3B). Meanwhile, the meta-regression also found the SLE sample sizes is not a dramatic impact factor, P = .77, t = -0.30, 95%CI (0.29, 2.52) (Fig 3C). Therefore, the type of samples might be responsible for the existing heterogeneities.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Performance of TmiRs detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROCs for all datasets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effect models. Each square in the SROC represents 1 study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI = confidence interval, DOR = diagnostic odds ratio, SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus, miR = mircoRNA, OR = odds ratio, SROC = summary receiver operating characteristic curves value.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. The meta-regression of the enrolled studies.

(A) For the type of samples, the meta-regression detected it was a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = .030, t = -2.17, 95%CI (0.30, 0.96). (B) For the ethnicity of studies, the meta-regression did not find it was a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = .056, t = -1.97, 95%CI (0.20, 1.02). (C) For the SLE sample sizes, the meta-regression did not detect it was a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = .77, t = -0.30, 95%CI (0.29, 2.52). The meta-regression could determine the correlation between the potential factors and the existing heterogeneities. When a significant difference was discovered, the factor should have a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies with a P value <0.05. or, odds ratio. CI, confidence interval.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g003

miRNA-21.

The overall diagnostic performance in detecting SLE of miR-21 has been demonstrated in Fig 3. The summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95%CI, 0.62 to 0.74), and the pooled estimation showed significant heterogeneity (P = .0062, x2 = 14.38, I2 = 72.2%) (Fig 4A). Additionally, the summary specificity was 0.77 (95%CI, 0.69 to 0.84), and the pooled estimation showed some heterogeneity (sensitivity: P = .4437, x2 = 3.73, I2 = 0.0%) (Fig 4B). Meanwhile, the pooled DOR was 7.85 (95%CI, 3.52 to 17.51) with a noticeable heterogeneity (P = .0372, Cochran-Q = 10.20, I2 = 60.8%) (Fig 4C). It revealed that the AUC value was 0.8281±0.0608 (Fig 4D). The absence of a curvilinear shape in the SROC suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect. As fewer than ten studies were included in this study, meta-regression and subgroups analysis was not appropriate.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Performance of miR-21 detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROCs for all datasets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effect models. Each square in the SROC represents 1 study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI = confidence interval, DOR = diagnostic odds ratio, SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus, miR = mircoRNA, OR = odds ratio, SROC = summary receiver operating characteristic curves value.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g004

Total mixed miRNAs with miR-21 knockout.

The overall diagnostic performance of TmiRs-KO-21 (S1 Fig) showed the potential diagnostic capability of miRNAs for SLE without the impact of miR-21. The summary sensitivity was 0.71 (95%CI, 0.69 to 0.72), and the summary specificity was 0.81 (95%CI, 0.79 to 0.83). Both pooled estimations showed high heterogeneity (sensitivity: P = .0000, x2 = 382.58, I2 = 90.9%; specificity: P = .0000, x2 = 127.14, I2 = 72.5%) (Figure A and B in S1 Fig). The pooled DOR was 19.06 (95%CI, 13.42 to 27.06). The results of DOR showed consistency across the included reports, with noticeable heterogeneity (P = .0000, Cochran-Q = 119.49, I2 = 70.7%) (Figure C in S1 Fig). The AUC value was 0.8895±0.0152 (Figure D in S1 Fig). The absence of a curvilinear shape in the SROC suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.

Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis.

We systematically and qualitatively analyzed the sensitivity across included studies to determine the influence of individual trials on the results of TmiRs and miR-21, using STATA 15.1 for meta-analysis random-effects estimates. Finally, we did not detect any significant impact from every single research and confirmed the results of TmiRs (Fig 5A) and miR-21 (Fig 5B). Besides, we used Meta-Disc 1.4 to detect whether there is any threshold effect in studies. The results showed that the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.178 and P = .264, meaning no threshold effect related to heterogeneity existed. Among the all enrolled studies, there were three different types of sample collection protocols (plasma, serum, and PBMC), two ethnicities (Caucasian and Mongoloid), and two SLE sample sizes (n < 100 and n ≥ 100). And then, we conducted three subgroups analysis according to the type of samples, ethnicity, and the SLE sample size. The results were shown in Table 3 and S2–S8 Figs. The subgroup analysis suggested that the plasma group had the largest AUC of SROC in all the subgroups: pooled sensitivity, 0.8 (95%CI, 0.78 to 0.82); pooled specificity, 0.83 (95%CI, 0.8 to 0.86); and SROC, 0.9068.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Sensitivity analysis of the individual trials on the results TmiRs and miR-21.

(A) For the result of TmiRs, (B) For the result of miR-21. Not any single study was detected to incur undue weight in the analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g005

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Subgroup analysis results of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.t003

Publication bias.

We used funnel plots to evaluate the publication bias of the included studies. Each dot plots in these plots represented a study. The distance between each dot and the vertical line suggested bias in each study. The absence of any asymmetric distribution suggested that there was no publication bias. An asymmetric distribution indicated that publication bias existed. Deeks’ tests revealed the possibility of significant publication bias among the included evaluation pooled results of TmiRs (P < .001, 95%CI, 5.96 to 19.69) (Fig 6A), TmiRs-KO-21 (P = .000, 95%CI, 7.35 to 21.55) (Fig 6C), serum group (P = .006, 95%CI, 10.62 to 21.20) (Fig 6E), Caucasian group (P = .041, 95%CI, 2.44 to 95.45) (Fig 6G), Mongoloid group (P = .000, 95%CI, 8.56 to 23.44) (Fig 6H), and the SLE sample size (n < 100) group (P = .001, 95%CI, 26.40 to 97.65) (Fig 6I). Otherwise, there were no significant publication biases among the included studies of miR-21 (P = .077, 95%CI, –13.93 to 154.66) (Fig 6B), PBMC group (P = .732, 95%CI, –38.53 to 52.23) (Fig 6D), plasma group (P = .508, 95%CI, –18.80 to 37.01) (Fig 6F), and the SLE sample size (n ≥ 100) group (P = .081, 95%CI, -4.77 to 53.03) (Fig 6J) among the evaluation pooled results.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias.

The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the DOR. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. (A) TmiRs pooled result, (B) miR-21 pooled result, (C) TmiRs-KO-21 pooled result, (D) PBMC pooled result, (E) serum pooled result, (F) plasma pooled result, (G) Caucasian pooled result, (H) Mongoloid pooled result, (I) SLE sample size (n < 100) pooled result, and (J) SLE sample size (n ≥ 100) pooled result. This funnel plot indicates no publication bias with a P value >.05. DOR = diagnostic odds ratio, ESS = effective sample size, miR = mircoRNA, TmiRs = total mixed miRNAs, TmiRs-KO-21 = total mixed miRNA knock out miR-21, SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus, PBMC = peripheral blood mononuclear cell.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.g006

Discussion

Since the introduction of miRNAs almost a decade ago, a series of publications have demonstrated the emerging role of miRNAs in the regulation of immune system development, maturation, and the pathological mechanisms of autoimmune disease, including SLE [43–47]. Furthermore, they can also be used in monitoring SLE disease severity function as novel potential targets for lupus treatment [47]. Meanwhile, many investigations had been carried out to assess whether miRNAs have sufficient capability to be used as biomarkers for SLE [48–50]. In this meta-analysis, we enrolled 17 studies and finally found that TmiRs achieved a combined AUC of 0.8797 with 71% pooled sensitivity, and 81% pooled specificity, which indicated that miRNAs had a moderate diagnostic accuracy as a diagnostic biomarker in discriminating SLE from healthy people. Furthermore, we examined single individual miRNAs among the total miRNA library and found that miR-21 was the most repeatedly used in individual studies recently. Based on this, we enrolled five studies on miR-21 and found a summary sensitivity of 0.68 (95%CI, 0.62 to 0.74) and summary specificity of 0.77 (95%CI, 0.69 to 0.84). In addition, the AUC value reached 0.8281±0.0608, which suggested that miR-21 had a moderate diagnostic accuracy in detecting SLE. Moreover, we also pooled the results of TmiRs after excluding the five studies on miR-21 for further confirmation. Although the AUC value rose slightly to 0.8895±0.0152 compared to that of TmiR, it still couldn’t deny the advantages of miR-21 in detecting SLE. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that focused on the accuracy of miR-21 in detecting SLE and confirmed the diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as potential biomarkers for SLE.

miR-21 originated from chromosome 17q23.2 immediately to the vacuole membrane protein 1 gene and played an important role in regulating cell differentiation and proliferation [51–52]. Furthermore, miR-21 was considered as a promising biomarker of many diseases [53–55]. Also, previous studies suggested that miR-21 regulated aberrant responses of T cells of SLE [56–57], modulation of miR-21 expressions might restore the function of Treg cells and in turn reverse the clinical manifestations of SLE [19]. In lupus CD4+ T cells, the up-regulated miR-21 can suppress the expression of DNA methyltransferase 1 and enhance DNA hypomethylation [58]. However, the mechanism by which miR-21 regulates gene expression is still unclear and needs further research. However, miR-21 has been involved in several types of diseases, which would limit the diagnostic value of miR-21 in SLE with lower specificity compared to total miRNA. Give that, miR-21 is a key regulator in series of inflammation diseases, it still shows a significant role in differing related diseases such as autoimmune diseases and non-autoimmune diseases.

The results from our subgroup studies suggested that circulating miRNAs could be used as SLE diagnostic biomarkers in the Mongoloid group with relatively higher accuracy compared with the Caucasian group (the AUC value: 0.9000±0.0140, and 0.8028±0.0457, respectively). In addition, our meta-analysis showed that plasma-based specimens had a higher accuracy than PBMC or serum-based specimens (the AUC value: 0.9068±0.0151, 0.8044±0.0279, and 0.7073±0.0346, respectively). Besides, human miRNAs isolated from plasma are highly stable in boiling water and resistant to very high or low pH, prolonged room temperature incubation or repeated freeze-thawing [59]. Therefore, plasma is recommended as the clinical specimen for diagnostic detection.

Previous studies investigated the role of CRP, ERS, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in SLE patients associated with infection. Finally, they found that elevated CRP and NLR levels can be used as a predictor of active infection in SLE patients with a high specificity [60–62]. Our study aimed to gather evidence on how the diagnostic performance of miRNAs, especially miR-21, distinguished SLE with or without infection. Due to almost all of the included studies did not indicate whether SLE patients are associated with infectious diseases, we could not further analyze SLE patients who are infected and uninfected separately. It is worthy of note that the dysregulation of miRNAs in SLE could be the result of multiple factors [63]. Additionally, the ideal time for specimen acquisition was before treatment. Unfortunately, only two of the studies [17,31] involved in our meta-analysis indicated that blood samples were collected before treatment, while six studies [20,33,37,39,40,42] did not clarify when the specimens were obtained, five studies [18,19,21,36,41] stated that samples were collected during the period of treatments, and four articles [32,34,35,38] indicated that the time for specimen collection was after the patients had stopped treatments for a period of time. Thus, these differences in patient and blood collection time could cause inevitable bias to our results. Further well-designed studies with uniform criteria are needed to assess the diagnostic performance of miRNAs for SLE.

Additionally, the meta-analysis of six articles by Dai et al. found that the pooled sensitivity was 0.75, specificity was 0.72, and the AUC was 0.787 [22]. Our present meta-analysis showed that miRNAs had a relatively higher diagnostic accuracy. More importantly, the advantages of our meta-analysis are as follows: first, this study was much larger, with more than twice as many studies as the earlier meta-analysis. Second, we performed a meta-analysis of five reports to verify the diagnostic accuracy of miR-21 as potential biomarkers for SLE, which was a key miRNA among the total miRNAs. Third, we carried out the meta-regression analysis detect where the potential factor for heterogeneity origin from and found the type of samples might be the sources of heterogeneity. Furthermore, the subgroup analyses detected that miRNAs in plasma had the highest diagnostic accuracy.

Study limitations

As some pooled results showed large heterogeneities, several limitations of this meta-analysis need to be addressed. First, our meta-analysis included 39 miRNA markers, with only six miRNA markers that were repeatedly identified in two or three of the included publications except for miR-21, so that we did not conduct a meta-analysis on the same individual miRNA markers across publications except for miR-21. Second, due to the lack of conventional methodologies for an accurate absolute quantification of miRNAs, which limits the cross-comparison between studies performed by different laboratories, might produce unconvincing results for the included studies. Third, no included articles combine miRNAs with other laboratory tests, such as complement and antibodies to identify the diagnostic accuracy of SLE, which could work as a better method for detection. Besides, the times of sample obtained were varied among included studies, which might generated bias and decrease the strength in interpreting the results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, despite these limitations, our meta-analysis demonstrated that circulating miRNAs might be potential novel biomarkers for detecting SLE, especially miR-21. Moreover, plasma is recommended as the clinical specimen for diagnostic detection. Therefore, more well-designed researches need to be done to launch the application of miRNAs as biomarkers for SLE detection in the clinic. Furthermore, a combination of miRNAs and other laboratory tests needs to be worked as a better method for detection.

Supporting information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s001

(DOC)

S1 Appendix. Search strategies for EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s002

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Performance of TmiRs-KO-21 detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s003

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Performance of PBMC detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s004

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Performance of serum detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s005

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Performance of plasma detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s006

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Performance of Caucasian detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s007

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Performance of Mongoloid detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s008

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Performance of SLE sample size (n < 100) detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s009

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Performance of SLE sample size (n ≥ 100) detection for the diagnosis of SLE.

(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. (C) Overall DOR. (D) The SROC curves for all data sets. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. Each square in the SROC curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. Error bars represent 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; miR, mircoRNA; SROC; summary receiver operating characteristic curves value; OR, odds ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217523.s010

(TIF)

References

  1. 1. Leffers HCB, Lange T, Collins C, Ulff-Møller CJ, Jacobsen S. The study of interactions between genome and exposome in the development of systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun Rev. Epub ahead of print 2019;pii: S1568-9972(19)30040-0. pmid:30772495
  2. 2. Kaul A, Gordon C, Crow MK, Touma Z, Urowitz MB, van Vollenhoven R, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16039. pmid:27306639
  3. 3. Phuti A, Schneider M, Tikly M, Hodkinson B. Living with systemic lupus erythematosus in the developing world. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(9):1601–1613. pmid:29582096
  4. 4. Yurkovich M, Vostretsova K, Chen W, Avina-Zubieta JA. Overall and cause-specific mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Arthritis Care Res (Hobeken). 2014;66(4):608–616. pmid:24106157
  5. 5. Faurschou M, Starklint H, Halberg P, Jacobsen S. Prognostic factors in lupus nephritis: diagnostic and therapeutic delay increases the risk of terminal renal failure. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(8):1563–1569 pmid:16881113
  6. 6. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40(9):1725. pmid:9324032.
  7. 7. Heidenreich U, Mayer G, Herold M, Klotz W, Stempfl Al-Jazrawi K, Lhotta K. Sensitivity and specificity of autoantibody tests in the differential diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Lupus. 2009;18(14):1276–1280. pmid:19854810
  8. 8. Wichainun R, Kasitanon N, Wangkaew S, Hongsongkiat S, Sukitawut W, Louthrenoo W. Sensitivity and specificity of ANA and anti-dsDNA in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparison using control sera obtained from healthy individuals and patientswith multiple medical problems. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2013;31(4):292–298. pmid:24383972
  9. 9. Flechsig A, Rose T, Barkhudarova F, Strauss R, Klotsche J, Dähnrich C, Schlumberger W,et al. What is the clinical significance of anti- Sm antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus? A comparison with anti-dsDNA antibodies and C3. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017;35(4):598–606. pmid:28281463
  10. 10. Sciascia S, Murru V, Sanna G, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML. Clinical accuracy for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: evaluation of 23 possible combinations of antiphospholipid antibody specificities. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(12):2512–8. pmid:23025466
  11. 11. Yao Q, Chen Y, Zhou X. The roles of microRNAs in epigenetic regulation. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2019;51:11–17. Epub ahead of print pmid:30825741
  12. 12. Valinezhad Orang A, Safaralizadeh R, Kazemzadeh-Bavili M. Mechanisms of miRNA-Mediated Gene Regulation from Common Downregulation to mRNA-SpecificUpregulation. Int J Genomics. 2014;2014:970607. Epub 2014/08/10 pmid:25180174
  13. 13. Kosaka N, Iguchi H, Ochiya T. Circulating microRNA in body fluid: a new potential biomarker for cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Cancer Sci. 2010;101(10):2087–2092. pmid:20624164
  14. 14. Yan H, Ma F, Zhang Y, Wang C, Qiu D, Zhou K, et al. miRNAs as biomarkers for diagnosis of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(22):e6825. pmid:28562533
  15. 15. Jin F, Hu H, Xu M, Zhan S, Wang Y, Zhang H, Chen X. Serum microRNA Profiles Serve as Novel Biomarkers for Autoimmune Diseases. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2381. pmid:30459760
  16. 16. Stagakis E, Bertsias G, Verginis P, Nakou M, Hatziapostolou M, Kritikos H, et al. Identification of novel microRNA signatures linked to human lupus disease activity and pathogenesis: miR-21 regulates aberrant T cell responses through regulation of PDCD4 expression. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(8):1496–506. pmid:21602271
  17. 17. Tang ZM, Fang M, Wang JP, Cai PC, Wang P, Hu LH. Clinical relevance of plasma miR-21 in new-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients. J Clin Lab Anal. 2014;28(6):446–451. pmid:24659142
  18. 18. Motawi TK, Mohsen DA, El-Maraghy SA, Kortam MA. MicroRNA-21, microRNA-181a and microRNA-196a as potential biomarkers in adult Egyptian patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Chem Biol Interact. 2016;260:110–116. pmid:27816459
  19. 19. Amr KS, Bayoumi FS, Elgengehy FT, Abdallah SO, Ahmed HH, Eissa E. The role of microRNA-31 and microRNA-21 as regulatory biomarkers in the activation of T lymphocytes of Egyptian lupus patients. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(11):1617–1625. pmid:27510529
  20. 20. Guo S, Ge S, Ku M, Shang W, Zeng R, Han M, et al. Clinical correlation of plasma miR-21, miR-126 and miR-148a in patients with lupus nephritis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(2):2905–2912 www.ijcem.com /ISSN:1940-5901/IJCEM0015181. Google Scholar
  21. 21. Khoshmirsafa M, Kianmehr N, Falak R, Mowla SJ, Seif F, Mirzaei B, et al. Elevated expression of miR-21 and miR-155 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells as potential biomarkers for lupus nephritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2018. Epub ahead of print pmid:30398001
  22. 22. Dai ZW, Wang H, Xu WJ, Wang ZH, Xu SQ, Wang B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as potential biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(11):2999–3007. Epub 2018/07/06 pmid:29980876
  23. 23. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323(7305):157–162 pmid:11463691
  24. 24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. pmid:19621072
  25. 25. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25. pmid:14606960
  26. 26. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–1135 pmid:14615004
  27. 27. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–1316 pmid:8210827
  28. 28. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–893. pmid:16085191
  29. 29. Higgins JP, Thompson SG Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558. pmid:12111919
  30. 30. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31. pmid:16836745
  31. 31. Li HS, Ning Y, Li SB, Shao PY, Chen SJ, Ye Q, et al. Expression and clinical significance of miR-181a and miR-203 in systemic lupus erythematosuspatients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(21):4790–4796. pmid:29164585
  32. 32. Wang W, Mou S, Wang L, Zhang M, Shao X, Fang W, et al. Up-regulation of Serum MiR-130b-3p Level is Associated with Renal Damage in Early Lupus Nephritis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12644. pmid:26316103
  33. 33. Navarro-Quiroz E, Pacheco-Lugo L, Lorenzi H, Díaz-Olmos Y, Almendrales L, Rico E, et al. High-Throughput Sequencing Reveals Circulating miRNAs as Potential Biomarkers of KidneyDamage in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166202. pmid:27835701
  34. 34. Sharaf-Eldin WE, Kishk NA, Gad YZ, Hassan H, Ali MAM, Zaki MS, et al. Extracellular miR-145, miR-223 and miR-326 expression signature allow for differential diagnosis of immune-mediated neuroinflammatory diseases. J Neurol Sci. 2017;383:188–198. pmid:29246612
  35. 35. Zhu Y, Xue Z, Di L. Regulation of MiR-146a and TRAF6 in the Diagnose of Lupus Nephritis. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:2550–2557. pmid:28549054
  36. 36. Zhang H, Huang X, Ye L, Guo G, Li X, Chen C, et al. B cell-related circulating Micrornas With the Potential Value of Biomarkers in the Differential Diagnosis, and Distinguishment Between the Disease activity and lupus nephritis for systemic lupus erythematosus. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1473. pmid:30008716
  37. 37. Zeng L, Wu JL, Liu LM, Jiang JQ, Wu HJ, Zhao M, et al. Serum miRNA-371b-5p and miRNA-5100 act as biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Immunol. 2018;196:103–109. pmid:30304699
  38. 38. Wang X, Zhang C, Wu Z, Chen Y, Shi W. CircIBTK inhibits DNA demethylation and activation of AKT signaling pathway via miR-29b in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):118. pmid:29884225
  39. 39. Guo G, Wang H, Shi X, Ye L, Wu K, Lin K, et al. NovelmiRNA-25 inhibits AMPD3 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and represents a promising novel biomarker. J Transl Med. 2018;16:370. doi.org/10.1186/s12967-018-1739-5. Google Scholar. pmid:30577810
  40. 40. Zhang Y, Wang Y. The correlation of plasma microRNA-200 family expressions with risk and disease severity of lupus nephritis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22(10):3118–3125. pmid:29863256
  41. 41. Shumnalieva R, Kachakova D, Shoumnalieva-Ivanova V, Miteva P, Kaneva R, Monov S. Whole peripheral blood miR-146a and miR-155 expression levels in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Acta Reumatol Port. 2018;43(3):217–225 pmid:30414370
  42. 42. Zununi Vahed S, Nakhjavani M, Etemadi J, Jamshidi H, Jadidian N, Pourlak T, et al. Altered levels of immune-regulatory microRNAs in plasma samples of patients with lupus nephritis. Bioimpacts. 2018;8(3):177–183. pmid:30211077
  43. 43. Chen JQ, Papp G, Szodoray P, Zeher M.The role of microRNAs in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2016;15(12):1171–1180. pmid:27639156
  44. 44. Honarpisheh M, Köhler P, von Rauchhaupt E, Lech M. The Involvement of MicroRNAs in Modulation of Innate and Adaptive Immunity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Lupus Nephritis. J Immunol Res. 2018;2018:4126106. pmid:29854836
  45. 45. Le X, Yu X, Shen N. Novel insights of microRNAs in the development of systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2017;29(5):450–457. pmid:28570283
  46. 46. Husakova M. MicroRNAs in the key events of systemic lupus erythematosus pathogenesis. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2016;160(3):327–42. pmid:27003314
  47. 47. Qu B, Shen N. miRNAs in the Pathogenesis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(5):9557–72. pmid:25927578
  48. 48. Stypińska B, Paradowska-Gorycka A. Cytokines and MicroRNAs as Candidate Biomarkers for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(10):24194–218. pmid:26473848
  49. 49. Long H, Wang X, Chen Y, Wang L, Zhao M, Lu Q. Dysregulation of microRNAs in autoimmune diseases: Pathogenesis, biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets. Cancer Lett. 2018;428:90–103. pmid:29680223
  50. 50. Kim BS, Jung JY, Jeon JY, Kim HA, Suh CH. Circulating hsa-miR-30e-5p, hsa-miR-92a-3p, and hsa-miR-223-3p may be novel biomarkers in systemic lupus erythematosus. HLA. 2016;88(4):187–193. pmid:27596248
  51. 51. Pan X, Wang ZX, Wang R. MicroRNA-21: a novel therapeutic target in human cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;10(12):1224–1232. pmid:21139417
  52. 52. Ribas J, Ni X, Castanares M, Liu MM, Esopi D, Yegnasubramanian S, et al. A novel source for miR-21 expression through the alternative polyadenylation of VMP1 gene transcripts. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:6821–6833. pmid:22505577
  53. 53. Zheng W, Zhao J, Tao Y, Guo M, Ya Z, Chen C, et al. MicroRNA-21: A promising biomarker for the prognosis and diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. 2018;16(3):2777–2782. pmid:30127862
  54. 54. Gholaminejad A, Abdul Tehrani H, Gholami Fesharaki M. Identification of candidate microRNA biomarkers in diabetic nephropathy: a meta-analysis of profiling studies. J Nephrol. 2018;31(6):813–831. pmid:30019103
  55. 55. Sekar D, Shilpa BR, Das AJ. Relevance of microRNA 21 in Different Types of Hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2017;19(7):57. pmid:28597404
  56. 56. Stagakis E, Bertsias G, Verginis P, Nakou M, Hatziapostolou M, Kritikos H, et al. Identification of novel microRNA signatures linked to human lupus disease activity and pathogenesis: miR-21 regulates aberrant T cell responses through regulation of PDCD4 expression. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(8):1496–1506. pmid:21602271
  57. 57. Rouas R, Fayyad-Kazan H, El Zein N, Lewalle P, Rothé F, Simion A, et al. Human natural Treg microRNA signature: role of microRNA-31 and microRNA-21 in FOXP3 expression. Eur J Immunol. 2009;39(6):1608–1618. pmid:19408243
  58. 58. Pan W, Zhu S, Yuan M, Cui H, Wang L, Luo X, et al. MicroRNA-21 and microRNA-148a contribute to DNA hypomethylation in lupus CD4+ T cells by directly and indirectly targeting DNA methyl transferase 1. J Immunol. 2010;184(12):6773–6781. pmid:20483747
  59. 59. Turchinovich A, Weiz L, Langheinz A, Burwinkel B. Characterization of extracellular circulating microRNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(16):7223–7233. pmid:21609964
  60. 60. Kim HA, Jung JY, Suh CH. Usefulness of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a biomarker for diagnosing infections in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(11):2479–2485. pmid:28840341
  61. 61. Kim HA, Jeon JY, An JM, Koh BR, Suh CH. C-reactive protein is a more sensitive and specific marker for diagnosing bacterial infections in systemic lupus erythematosus compared to S100A8/A9 and procalcitonin. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(4):728–734. pmid:22337236
  62. 62. Firooz N, Albert DA, Wallace DJ, Ishimori M, Berel D, Weisman MH. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2011;20(6):588–597. pmid:21436216
  63. 63. Stypińska B, Paradowska-Gorycka A. Cytokines and MicroRNAs as Candidate Biomarkers for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(10):24194–24218. pmid:26473848