Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.C., M.B. and G.S.; methodology, S.P. and J.R.; formal analysis, D.C., S.P., J.R., Z.H.-S., F.T., J.K. and S.S.; investigation, D.C., S.P., J.R., Z.H.-S., F.T. and J.K.; resources, D.C., S.P., J.R., D.T., Z.G., S.S., G.S. and L.B.; data curation, D.C., S.P., J.R., D.T. and Z.G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.C.; writing—review and editing, S.S., Z.S., G.S. and L.B.; visualization, D.C. and S.P.; supervision, S.S. and L.B.; project administration, D.C., M.B., D.T. and Z.G.; funding acquisition, D.C., Z.S. and S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 8 downregulated miRNAs (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05) in SSc compared to controls. Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc compared to healthy controls. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
Figure 1.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 8 downregulated miRNAs (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05) in SSc compared to controls. Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc compared to healthy controls. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g001 Biomolecules 16 00994 g001]()
Figure 2.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) and limited cutaneous (lcSSc, n = 26) patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first principal component accounts for 31.5% and the second principal component accounts for 14.37% of the total variance. Yellow triangles represent lcSSc patients, while red squares indicate dcSSc patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 2.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) and limited cutaneous (lcSSc, n = 26) patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first principal component accounts for 31.5% and the second principal component accounts for 14.37% of the total variance. Yellow triangles represent lcSSc patients, while red squares indicate dcSSc patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 3.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 4 downregulated miRNAs comparing diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) and limited cutaneous (lcSSc, n = 26) patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in dcSSc compared to lcSSc patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
Figure 3.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 4 downregulated miRNAs comparing diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) and limited cutaneous (lcSSc, n = 26) patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in dcSSc compared to lcSSc patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g003 Biomolecules 16 00994 g003]()
Figure 4.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of SSc-ILD (n = 35) and SSc-noILD (n = 17) patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 22.86% and 15.01% of the total variance, respectively. Red squares represent SSc-noILD patients, while yellow triangles indicate SSc-ILD patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 4.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of SSc-ILD (n = 35) and SSc-noILD (n = 17) patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 22.86% and 15.01% of the total variance, respectively. Red squares represent SSc-noILD patients, while yellow triangles indicate SSc-ILD patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 5.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 11 downregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-ILD and SSc-noILD patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-ILD compared to SSc-noILD patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
Figure 5.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 11 downregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-ILD and SSc-noILD patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-ILD compared to SSc-noILD patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g005 Biomolecules 16 00994 g005]()
Figure 6.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 24.18% and 17.28% of the total variance, respectively. Yellow triangles represent SSc patients without PAH, while red squares indicate SSc-PAH patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 6.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 24.18% and 17.28% of the total variance, respectively. Yellow triangles represent SSc patients without PAH, while red squares indicate SSc-PAH patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 7.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 4 downregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-PAH compared to SSc-noPAH patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
Figure 7.
(A–E) Functional enrichment analysis of validated targets of top 4 downregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients (FC < −1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top downregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-PAH compared to SSc-noPAH patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–C) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (D) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (E) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance.
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g007 Biomolecules 16 00994 g007]()
Figure 8.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of validated targets of top 2 upregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients (FC > 1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top upregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-PAH compared to SSc-noPAH patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–B) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (C) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance. (E) miRNA–target interaction network of upregulated miRNAs in SSc-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH). Network visualization of validated target genes of upregulated miRNAs in SSc-PAH compared to SSc without PAH. The central node represents hsa-miR-486-5p (orange), while connected nodes (blue) indicate experimentally validated target genes. Edges represent miRNA–target interactions.
Figure 8.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of validated targets of top 2 upregulated miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH and SSc-noPAH patients (FC > 1.5, p < 0.05). Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses were performed on experimentally validated target genes of the top upregulated miRNAs identified in SSc-PAH compared to SSc-noPAH patients. Target genes were derived from miRTarBase and TarBase, and only high-confidence interactions supported by both databases were retained. (A–B) GO enrichment analysis showing the top 10 significantly enriched terms (p < 0.05) for Biological Process (BP), Cellular Component (CC), and Molecular Function (MF), respectively. (C) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, displaying the top 10 enriched pathways. (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analysis of validated target genes, showing the top enriched pathways. Bars length represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with darker color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance. Terms are ordered by increasing significance. (E) miRNA–target interaction network of upregulated miRNAs in SSc-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH). Network visualization of validated target genes of upregulated miRNAs in SSc-PAH compared to SSc without PAH. The central node represents hsa-miR-486-5p (orange), while connected nodes (blue) indicate experimentally validated target genes. Edges represent miRNA–target interactions.
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g008a Biomolecules 16 00994 g008a]()
![Biomolecules 16 00994 g008b Biomolecules 16 00994 g008b]()
Figure 9.
Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of responsive (R) and non-responsive (NR) SSc-ILD patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 56.46% and 12.95% of the total variance, respectively. Yellow triangles represent responsive patients, while red squares indicate non-responsive patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 9.
Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of responsive (R) and non-responsive (NR) SSc-ILD patients based on their miRNA expression profiles. The first and second principal components account for 56.46% and 12.95% of the total variance, respectively. Yellow triangles represent responsive patients, while red squares indicate non-responsive patients. Each point corresponds to an individual patient. The ellipse denotes the overall data distribution.
Figure 10.
Differentially expressed miRNA–mRNA network. The network was generated using FDR-corrected differentially expressed mRNAs and differentially expressed miRNAs selected based on unadjusted p-value and fold-change criteria. A total of 180 unique inverse miRNA–mRNA pairs were identified. Node coloring reflects logFC values, with red indicating higher and blue indicating lower expression.
Figure 10.
Differentially expressed miRNA–mRNA network. The network was generated using FDR-corrected differentially expressed mRNAs and differentially expressed miRNAs selected based on unadjusted p-value and fold-change criteria. A total of 180 unique inverse miRNA–mRNA pairs were identified. Node coloring reflects logFC values, with red indicating higher and blue indicating lower expression.
Figure 11.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of the 31 upregulated genes (SSc vs. healthy controls, FDR < 0.05). (A) Gene Ontology (GO) Biological Process (BP), (B) Cellular Component (CC), (C) Molecular Function (MF), and (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analyses are shown. For each panel, the top 10 significantly enriched terms are displayed, ranked primarily by the number of genes involved (Count) and secondarily by statistical significance (p-value). The x-axis represents the gene ratio (proportion of input genes associated with a given term), while dot size reflects the number of genes contributing to each term. Color intensity corresponds to the nominal p-value of enrichment. Only terms with p < 0.05 are included.
Figure 11.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of the 31 upregulated genes (SSc vs. healthy controls, FDR < 0.05). (A) Gene Ontology (GO) Biological Process (BP), (B) Cellular Component (CC), (C) Molecular Function (MF), and (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analyses are shown. For each panel, the top 10 significantly enriched terms are displayed, ranked primarily by the number of genes involved (Count) and secondarily by statistical significance (p-value). The x-axis represents the gene ratio (proportion of input genes associated with a given term), while dot size reflects the number of genes contributing to each term. Color intensity corresponds to the nominal p-value of enrichment. Only terms with p < 0.05 are included.
Figure 12.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of the 9 downregulated genes (SSc vs. healthy controls, FDR < 0.05). (A) Gene Ontology (GO), Biological Process (BP), (B) Cellular Component (CC), (C) Molecular Function (MF), and (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analyses are shown. For each panel, the top 10 significantly enriched terms are displayed, ranked by statistical significance (p-value). The x-axis represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance corresponding to the nominal p-value of enrichment. Terms are ordered by increasing significance. Only terms with p < 0.05 are included.
Figure 12.
(A–D) Functional enrichment analyses of the 9 downregulated genes (SSc vs. healthy controls, FDR < 0.05). (A) Gene Ontology (GO), Biological Process (BP), (B) Cellular Component (CC), (C) Molecular Function (MF), and (D) Reactome pathway enrichment analyses are shown. For each panel, the top 10 significantly enriched terms are displayed, ranked by statistical significance (p-value). The x-axis represents significance of enrichment as −log10(p-value), with color intensity indicating stronger statistical significance corresponding to the nominal p-value of enrichment. Terms are ordered by increasing significance. Only terms with p < 0.05 are included.
Figure 13.
(A) Reactome enrichment analysis of the 22 upregulated genes. The 22 upregulated genes have been revealed with cross-section analysis of the 31 upregulated DEGs and the 897 miRTarBase- and TarBase-validated targets of the top 8 downregulated miRNAs in our study (SSc vs. healthy). (B) Inverse miRNA-gene regulatory network of the 22 common genes (SSc vs. healthy). Network representation of interactions between downregulated miRNAs (blue nods) and upregulated target genes (pink nodes) identified in SSc patients compared to healthy controls. Edges indicate experimentally validated miRNA–target interactions from miRTarBase and TarBase.
Figure 13.
(A) Reactome enrichment analysis of the 22 upregulated genes. The 22 upregulated genes have been revealed with cross-section analysis of the 31 upregulated DEGs and the 897 miRTarBase- and TarBase-validated targets of the top 8 downregulated miRNAs in our study (SSc vs. healthy). (B) Inverse miRNA-gene regulatory network of the 22 common genes (SSc vs. healthy). Network representation of interactions between downregulated miRNAs (blue nods) and upregulated target genes (pink nodes) identified in SSc patients compared to healthy controls. Edges indicate experimentally validated miRNA–target interactions from miRTarBase and TarBase.
Table 1.
Characteristics of SSc patients.
Table 1.
Characteristics of SSc patients.
| Parameters | SSc (n = 52) |
|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) (years) | 59.1 ± 10.56 |
| Women, n (%) | 42 (80.8) |
| Disease characteristics | |
| Disease duration (mean ± SD) (years) | 15.4 ± 11.24 |
| Disease subtype | |
| Limited cutaneous, n (%) | 26 (50.0) |
| Diffuse cutaneous, n (%) | 26 (50.0) |
| Organ involvement | |
| Skin involvement, n (%) | 52 (100.0) |
| ILD, n (%) | 35 (67.3) |
| Cardiac involvement, n (%) | 9 (17.3) |
| PAH, n (%) | 8 (15.4) |
| Kidney involvement, n (%) | 2 (3.8) |
| Treatment at blood sampling | |
| Low-dose glucocorticoid treatment, n (%) | 6 (11.5) |
| Immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy, n (%) | 20 (38.5) |
| Antifibrotic therapy, n (%) | 6 (11.5) |
| Smoking status | |
| Never smoker, n (%) | 43 (82.7) |
| Former smoker, n (%) | 6 (11.5) |
| Current smoker, n (%) | 3 (5.8) |
| Disease activity/inflammation marker | |
| CRP at blood sampling, median [IQR], mg/L | 2.64 [1.32–5.10] |
Table 2.
Top differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc patients vs. healthy controls.
Table 2.
Top differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc patients vs. healthy controls.
| Mature miRNAs | FC Value | p-Value |
|---|
| Significantly downregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-30b-5p | −1.57 | 0.0003 |
| hsa-miR-31-5p | −1.63 | 0.0038 |
| hsa-miR-151a-5p | −1.55 | 0.0081 |
| hsa-miR-195-5p | −1.55 | 0.0078 |
| hsa-miR-652-3p | −1.53 | 0.0020 |
| hsa-miR-1291 | −1.72 | 0.0001 |
| hsa-miR-3920 | −1.57 | 0.02814 |
| hsa-miR-4446-3p | −1.44 | 0.0037 |
| hsa-miR-4772-5p | −1.68 | 0.0118 |
| hsa-miR-10395-5p | −1.94 | 0.0008 |
| Significantly upregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-10b-5p | 1.79 | 0.0187 |
| hsa-miR-16-1-3p | 1.58 | 0.0002 |
| hsa-miR-16-2-3p | 1.34 | 0.035 |
| hsa-miR-27a-5p | 1.68 | <0.0001 |
| hsa-miR-32a-5p | 1.84 | <0.0001 |
| hsa-miR-92a-1-5p | 1.72 | 0.0001 |
| hsa-miR-143-5p | 1.71 | 0.0190 |
| hsa-miR-183-5p | 1.86 | 0.0227 |
| hsa-miR-1294 | 1.74 | 0.0002 |
| hsa-miR-3158-3p | 1.68 | 0.0084 |
| hsa-miR-3605-3p | 1.60 | 0.0126 |
| hsa-miR-3690 | 2.60 | <0.0001 |
| hsa-miR-5690 | 1.79 | 0.0031 |
Table 3.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) vs. limited cutaneous (lcSS, n = 26) patients.
Table 3.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc, n = 26) vs. limited cutaneous (lcSS, n = 26) patients.
| Mature miRNAs | FC Value | p-Value |
|---|
| hsa-miR-127-3p | −1.54 | 0.0404 |
| hsa-miR-654-5p | −1.80 | 0.0386 |
| hsa-miR-708-3p | −1.58 | 0.0478 |
| hsa-miR-1468-5p | −1.53 | 0.0294 |
| hsa-miR-4446-3p | −1.41 | 0.0211 |
| hsa-miR-2110 | 1.47 | 0.0268 |
Table 4.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc-ILD vs. SSc-noILD patients.
Table 4.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc-ILD vs. SSc-noILD patients.
| Mature miRNAs | FC Value | p-Value |
|---|
| Significantly downregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-1-3p | −1.77 | 0.0439 |
| hsa-miR-127-5p | −1.81 | 0.0143 |
| hsa-miR-379-5p | −1.57 | 0.0415 |
| hsa-miR-432-5p | −2.11 | 0.0020 |
| hsa-miR-487b-3p | −1.67 | 0.0110 |
| hsa-miR-654-5p | −1.77 | 0.0378 |
| hsa-miR-708-3p | −1.74 | 0.0014 |
| hsa-miR-708-5p | −1.72 | 0.0410 |
| hsa-miR-3934-5p | −1.84 | 0.0039 |
| hsa-miR-6501-5p | −1.53 | 0.0439 |
| hsa-miR-6882-5p | −1.59 | 0.0011 |
| Significantly upregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-125a-5p | 1.52 | 0.0415 |
| hsa-miR-181b-3p | 1.39 | 0.0378 |
| hsa-miR-194-5p | 1.34 | 0.0343 |
| hsa-miR-199b-5p | 1.37 | 0.0031 |
| hsa-miR-450a-5p | 1.56 | 0.0311 |
| hsa-miR-499a-5p | 1.42 | 0.0180 |
| hsa-miR-581 | 1.56 | 0.0126 |
| hsa-miR-941 | 1.45 | 0.0187 |
| hsa-miR-1226-3p | 1.42 | 0.0231 |
Table 5.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH vs. SSc-noPAH patients.
Table 5.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing SSc-PAH vs. SSc-noPAH patients.
| Mature miRNAs | FC Value | p-Value |
|---|
| Significantly downregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-34a-5p | −1.66 | 0.0413 |
| hsa-miR-671-5p | −1.55 | 0.0033 |
| hsa-miR-942-5p | −1.81 | 0.0449 |
| hsa-miR-10399-5p | −1.52 | 0.0081 |
| Significantly upregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-486-5p | 1.81 | 0.0413 |
| hsa-miR-4433b-3p | 1.99 | 0.0164 |
Table 6.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing responsive (R) vs. non-responsive (NR) SSc-ILD patients.
Table 6.
Differentially expressed miRNAs comparing responsive (R) vs. non-responsive (NR) SSc-ILD patients.
| Mature miRNAs | FC Value | p-Value |
|---|
| Significantly downregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-2110 | −1.59 | 0.0277 |
| hsa-miR-6843-3p | −2.01 | 0.0142 |
| Significantly upregulated miRNAs | | |
| hsa-miR-194-3p | 1.61 | 0.0120 |
| hsa-miR-424-3p | 1.52 | 0.0392 |
| hsa-miR-542-3p | 1.51 | 0.0494 |
| hsa-miR-941 | 1.55 | 0.0470 |
| hsa-miR-1296-5p | 1.82 | 0.0340 |