Next Article in Journal
The Bone Marrow Niche in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: The Role of Microenvironment from Pre-Leukemia to Overt Leukemia
Next Article in Special Issue
Electroencephalography as a Non-Invasive Biomarker of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Forgotten Candidate to Substitute CSF Molecules?
Previous Article in Journal
The Multifaceted Mas-Related G Protein-Coupled Receptor Member X2 in Allergic Diseases and Beyond
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exosomal Aβ-Binding Proteins Identified by “In Silico” Analysis Represent Putative Blood-Derived Biomarker Candidates for Alzheimer´s Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 22
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms22094423
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Sex Perspective in Neurodegenerative Diseases: microRNAs as Possible Peripheral Biomarkers

by
Paola Piscopo
1,*,
Maria Bellenghi
2,
Valeria Manzini
1,
Alessio Crestini
1,
Giada Pontecorvi
2,
Massimo Corbo
3,
Elena Ortona
2,
Alessandra Carè
2 and
Annamaria Confaloni
1
1
Department of Neuroscience, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
2
Center of Gender Specific Medicine, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa Cura Policlinico, Via Dezza 48, 20144 Milano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(9), 4423; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094423
Submission received: 14 April 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 20 April 2021 / Published: 23 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Peripheral Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases 2.0)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sex is a significant variable in the prevalence and incidence of neurological disorders. Sex differences exist in neurodegenerative disorders (NDs), where sex dimorphisms play important roles in the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In the last few years, some sex specific biomarkers for the identification of NDs have been described and recent studies have suggested that microRNA (miRNA) could be included among these, as influenced by the hormonal and genetic background. Failing to consider the possible differences between males and females in miRNA evaluation could introduce a sex bias in studies by not considering some of these sex-related biomarkers. In this review, we recapitulate what is known about the sex-specific differences in peripheral miRNA levels in neurodegenerative diseases. Several studies have reported sex-linked disparities, and from the literature analysis miR-206 particularly has been shown to have a sex-specific involvement. Hopefully, in the near future, patient stratification will provide important additional clues in diagnosis, prognosis, and tailoring of the best therapeutic approaches for each patient. Sex-specific biomarkers, such as miRNAs, could represent a useful tool for characterizing subgroups of patients.

1. Introduction

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) have a huge impact on healthcare systems. They often are multifactorial with a complex pathophysiology, which makes an early diagnosis and identify effected treatments difficult. Several studies suggest that neuronal abnormalities start to appear 10–20 years before the onset of symptoms. Treatments are only symptomatic, and no pharmacological therapies are currently available to stop the underlying disease process [1]. There is a growing need for new tools having the ability to detect patients in their preclinical stage, monitor the disease progression, improve the understanding of various drug mechanisms targeting different pathogenic processes, and identify any response to treatment in a more sensitive and objective way. Using biomarkers, we can detect biochemical changes that appear when neurons begin to die. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are highly conserved small noncoding RNAs regulating post-transcriptional gene expression. Since their discovery, a large number of miRNAs have been described. They are remarkably stable in human biofluids and easy to manage. As a result, miRNAs have emerged as powerful diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in the pathophysiology of different neurodegenerative disorders and conditions affecting the central nervous system, in particular in older adults [2,3].
Gender differences have been a focus of interest in a growing number of studies in recent years. Several human conditions show gender or sex differences when considering their pathogenetic mechanisms, their progression, the age of onset, and treatment response. Recent studies suggest that the cause may lay in miRNA expression levels and that these differences might be influenced by a hormonal and genetic background [4]. Ignoring these differences could alter the meaning of the obtained results, as clusters or families of genes or molecular determinants, which have the potential to cause different disease onsets, could be missed or their functions and roles may not be further investigated. Moreover, failing to consider possible differences between males and females in miRNAs and in biomarkers in general could introduce a gender bias in the study.
Therefore, in this review, by analyzing the studies summarized in Table 1 and discussed in Table 2, we have tried to find an answer to the question: “Can we identify sex-specific biomarkers involved in the early and differential diagnosis, and which could, eventually, be useful to treat patients in a personalized way?”.

2. microRNAs as Possible Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases

Biomarkers are powerful tools in biomedical research, and can be useful as supports in selecting the best therapeutic strategies. Testing-specific biomarkers allow monitoring modulations in normal or pathological conditions and give the opportunity to identify diseases in their early stages or to follow them throughout their progression. Clinical symptoms in the early stages might be very subtle, manifesting only when molecular and cellular alterations have already occurred. Thus, there is an increasing effort to develop molecular diagnostic and prognostic markers that meet certain requirements, such as easy accessibility, high specificity and sensitivity, low costs, and applicability to laboratories with standard equipment, for example peripheral biomarkers.
The most well established markers for the detection and monitoring of the preclinical and clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) include cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures of Aβ42, total tau (t-tau), and phospho-tau (p-tau) [5], while the most promising for the diagnosis and monitoring of the progression of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is probably the assay of alpha-synuclein [6]. Other tools useful to support AD diagnosis are magnetic resonance imaging for hippocampal atrophy [7], the 18F-FDG PET to identify abnormal brain metabolism [8], and amyloid PET to detect the amyloid deposition [9]. However, these tests are invasive and expensive, and thus difficult to adopt in routine clinical practice.
An important novelty in this field is represented by peripheral circulating miRNAs. They are found in peripheral biofluids (saliva, blood, plasma, serum, urine), and therefore are easy to obtain from patients without any substantial risk to health. Moreover, miRNAs are remarkably stable in human biofluids and are easy to manage, thus they are increasingly emerging as promising powerful diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers of different pathophysiological processes [10] in conditions affecting the central nervous system, particularly in older adults. Interestingly, circulating miRNAs and miRNA profiles specific for AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) syndrome, PD, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have been defined and characterized [11,12,13].
MicroRNAs are short non-coding RNAs (20–25 nucleotides), which are emerging as fundamental factors that are mostly displaying their functions at post-transcriptional levels. These short RNA sequences exert their action by binding to the 3’UTR of their target genes to negatively modulate their expression. Depending on the precision of the sequence complementarity, miRNAs can induce translational repression or mRNA degradation.
Each gene transcript might be targeted by several miRNAs and each single miRNA can bind and regulate hundreds of direct targets. Due to their number and complexity, miRNA–mRNA interactions are far from being well demonstrated.
Canonically, miRNAs are encoded as individual or cluster transcripts, with the latter containing several different miRNAs. Many miRNAs are located in the intron region of host protein coding genes [14]. Typically, miRNAs are generated from longer primary miRNA transcripts (pri-miRNA and pre-miRNA), which undergoing two sequential cleavages and passing to the RNase III enzymes Drosha and Dicer, produce the mature and biologically active molecules, which form the silencing complex together with the argonaute (AGO) protein.
It is important to note that miRNAs have unique characteristics, which make them possible candidate biomarkers. Differing from coding genes, miRNAs do not require translation and their expression level usually corresponds to their activity. Moreover, they are highly stable and easily preserved in biological specimens, thus making their analysis more informative than the analysis of longer RNAs. Even more importantly, growing data indicate that circulating miRNAs are representative of the releasing tissues and their detection in plasma or serum supports their use in non-invasive diagnostic or prognostic methods, which can eventually lead to the identification of therapeutic targets.

3. MicroRNAs in the Brain: From Function to Gender Differences

Besides their relevant physiological roles, the deregulation of miRNAs is involved in the onset and progression of several human pathological conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases. Significant sex differences have been associated with physiological and pathological miRNA functions. Differences in their expression levels can lead to a propensity to develop specific diseases, such as the higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease observed in females.
Males and females have considerable differences in their hormonal and genetic profiles [4], and these variables are known to impact on microRNAs. In particular, sex steroid hormones, such as estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone, are known to regulate the expression of several microRNAs [15,16,17,18].
In recent years, a growing number of studies have highlighted the impacts of sex-related microRNA expression on brain development [19], with sex hormones showing the ability to bind to nuclear hormone receptors in order to induce a direct or indirect alteration in gene expression [20]. Furthermore, during miRNA biogenesis, sex hormones could also have a huge impact on miRNAs regulation. In fact, estradiol has been proven to alter the expression of AGO, Drosha, and Dicer [21].
Surprisingly, despite genomic distribution analysis showing that the human X chromosome has a higher density of miRNAs compared to autosomes and the Y-chromosome [22,23], no literature data are currently available on sex-chromosome-related microRNAs implicated in NDs.
Due to the extreme complexity of the miRNA-based regulatory circuitries, further in depth analyses will be required in order to understand in a more definite way their physiological and pathological activity, and to confirm their promising roles as biomarkers.
Focusing on the hot spot of this review, very high-throughput sequencing experiments were interpreted, suggesting that the number of miRNAs expressed in the human brain is over 1000, although currently only ~550 have been annotated in all humans [24]. Certain miRNAs and other non-coding RNAs have been suggested to act as “complexity multipliers” to help translate the ~25,000 human protein-coding genes into the human cerebral cortex, thus participating in neurodevelopmental and neurophysiological network integration [25]. The expression of brain miRNA changes continuously during brain development, with some miRNAs being enriched during the early phase of brain maturation and others during the late phase. Many miRNAs are highly expressed in the adult nervous system in a spatially and temporally controlled way in both normal physiology and in certain pathological conditions. Indeed, miRNAs have been implicated in various aspects of dendrite remodeling and synaptic plasticity, as well as in experience-dependent adaptive changes of neural circuits in postnatal developmental and the adult brain [26].
Moreover, some miRNAs are “exclusive” to different cell populations. As an example, in the human hippocampus, miR-124 and miR-320 are expressed mainly by neurons, in the substantia nigra miR-320 is mainly expressed by pigmented cells, while miR-107 is barely expressed by the same cell types [27]. The functions of brain miRNAs are clearly not related only to cell fate determination along developmental lineages, but also to neuroplasticity and to many other neurobiological functions, including the regulation of the synthesis of synaptic proteins, the morphogenesis of the dendritic spine, and in plasticity-related diseases [28].
Ziats and colleagues observed significant sex differences in the expression of 40 miRNAs in the prefrontal cortex of males and females. The majority of sex-biased gene expression occurred in adolescence (65%), suggesting that miRNA-targeted gene expression differences become most pronounced around puberty, probably due to the hormonal influence of this life stage [29]. Importantly, Murphy and colleagues observed a differential expression of microRNAs according to sex in the development of the cortex in rats [19]. They performed expression studies in male and female cortices isolated from postnatal day 0 (P0), postnatal day 7 (P7), and adult rats, showing differential miRNA levels between males and females at each developmental stage. They focused in particular on the miR-200 family, which has a “biphasic” expression, being higher in female rats at P0, inverting its expression at P7, and being higher in male rats during adult life. Moreover, Cui and colleagues identified 73 female-biased miRNAs and 163 male-biased miRNAs in several tissues, including brain tissue [30].

4. Sex Differences in Neurodegenerative Diseases

Human pathological conditions that show differential incidence rates, clinical manifestations, and progression according to sex can be extremely interesting as a focus of research [31]. In particular, sex is a significant variable in the prevalence and incidence of neurological disorders [32]. Sex differences can be observed in age at onset, disease severity, progression, and response to treatment [33]. The biological factors underlying these sex disparities are currently poorly understood. Although traditionally attributed to hormonal effects, recent evidence has described the role of genetics, and in particular of the sex chromosomes in these sexual dimorphisms.
The response of the central nervous system (CNS) to sex steroids is complex and depends on the type, amount, and cellular distribution of sex hormone receptors. Female sex hormones, and in particular estrogens, have neuroprotective effects on the CNS [34,35], while more controversial data have been reported on the effect of male hormones [36,37].
Sex differences can be also observed in neurodegenerative disorders, where sex dimorphisms play an important role in the development and progression of AD, PD, and ALS. Considering sex as a biological variable, research promises to advance our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of these conditions.
AD is a multifactorial, degenerative condition characterized by progressive cognitive decline. It is one of the most common neurodegenerative disorders, affecting more than 45 million individuals throughout the world. The disease is defined and diagnosed based on the presence of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), which lead to oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, neural dysfunction, and neurodegeneration. Interestingly, Aβ peptides and tau protein clearance could also have main roles in the development of AD and others neurodegenerative pathologies [38,39,40,41]. Women and men have been reported to have differential vulnerability, pathogenesis, and clinical presentation. The prevalence of AD has been estimated to be higher in women than in men (2:1 female/male ratio) [42], with postmenopausal women contributing to over 60% of all affected subjects [43]. Despite a number of contrasting reports on sex-related differences in the incidence rates of AD [44,45,46,47,48,49], overall the evidence seems to homogeneously point to a higher incidence of AD in older women [50,51]. However, the biological causes underlying the sex-specific phenotypes in AD and the other neurodegenerative diseases are not yet well understood.
Some of the evidence has demonstrated that non-nuclear membrane estrogen receptor α (mERα) can play a role in the mechanism; mERα regulates a coordinated framework of defense strategies aimed at counteracting chronic oxidative imbalance, mitochondrial dysfunction, and brain energy dysmetabolism, which is a causative factor of neuronal cell degeneration, as well as in determining neuron survival [52,53]. Estrogens have a wide range of beneficial actions in the brain and in other tissues, and their loss may increase the risk of AD. Many studies suggest that reductions of estrogen in adulthood are associated with an increased risk of AD in women [54].
As for male sex hormones, similarly to the association between low estrogen levels and an increased risk of AD in women, lower testosterone levels may lead to a higher risk of AD in men. Moffat and colleagues [55] showed that testosterone depletion is an early component of the risk of AD in men, at least ten years prior to the clinical diagnosis of dementia. Importantly, the loss of testosterone in brain tissue is a key component of the disease process [56,57], and this mechanism is sex-specific because testosterone levels are not significantly different in women with AD [57].
PD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Its main pathological feature is the progressive loss of midbrain dopaminergic (DA) neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) and the presence of misfolded a-synuclein-positive cytoplasmic inclusions, called Lewy bodies, in the surviving neurons [58,59].
PD has a 1.5 higher frequency in men than women [60,61] at all ages and for all ethnicities [62], but it has a higher mortality rate and faster progression in women [63].
Several studies have reported certain specific sex differences in the clinical and cognitive characteristics of PD. PD in women starts with a more benign phenotype, probably due to the protective effect of estrogens, as the age of onset is correlated with the fertile life span. Moreover, gonadal hormones and sex chromosomes might modulate the risk of developing PD by influencing epigenetic mechanisms [62,64,65]. Preclinical evidence [62,66,67] suggested a potential neuroprotective effect of estrogens on dopaminergic neurons and in preventing brain damage through anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative, and anti-apoptotic mechanisms [68,69], along with possible inhibitory effects on the formation and stabilization of α-synuclein fibrils, a key pathological feature of PD. However, the progression of the disease in women leads to a higher risk of developing highly disabling treatment-related complications, such as motor and non-motor fluctuations, as well as dyskinesia [66,70].
As for AD, higher levels of estrogens are inversely correlated with the severity of PD symptoms, and women who experienced early natural or surgical menopause show a higher risk of PD [71].
Conflicting results have been observed regarding the functional role of male sex hormones in PD. In particular, one study reported that the prevalence of testosterone deficiency in male PD patients is higher than in men during their healthy aging [72]. Whether this imbalance is a precondition to or a consequence of PD is currently unknown.
Well-established effects of sex have been also reported on certain pathological and epidemiological features of ALS. ALS is a complex neurodegenerative disease primarily characterized by the progressive loss of both upper and lower motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, leading to fatal paralysis and respiratory failure [73]. As for PD, males are more susceptible to the disease [74] and sometimes develop more severe symptoms [75]. Both the incidence and prevalence rates of ALS in males and females depend on the age classes. However, older patients with ALS are more likely to be female, suggesting that menopause and associated hormonal changes could be involved in the higher frequency of the disease in older women [76].
Effects of sex on the most common clinical forms of the disease and types of symptom onset have been observed. A higher proportion of spinal onset was reported amongst men, while a higher frequency of bulbar onset was reported amongst women [77].
Several studies have described a protective effect of hormones in ALS murine models [77]. In fact, female hormones prevent cell death and reduce the neuroinflammation in neural and muscular cells. In particular, a study performed on SOD1 G93A (the most relevant human mutation in ALS pathogenesis) in mice showed that progesterone slowed down the progression of the disease and extended the life span of male mice with ALS, due to the activation of autophagic degradation of mutant SOD1 [77]. As for the effects of male sex hormones on the risk of ALS, testosterone efflux seems to have a role during prenatal life, irrespective of sex, in the lifelong risk of ALS, with increased prenatal levels of testosterone being a potential independent risk factor [78]. Importantly, ALS patients who had higher levels of testosterone and a lower progesterone/free testosterone ratio showed more rapid deterioration of respiratory parameters [79].
However, sex differences in the clinical features of ALS should be further investigated to understand the molecular mechanisms at the base of such dimorphisms and to develop more effective treatment options for ALS.

5. Peripheral Sex-Related miRNAs and Neurodegenerative Diseases

In the last few years, certain sex-specific biomarkers for the identification of NDs have been described [11], such as progranulin (PGRN) levels as markers in the pathogenesis of AD [80]. Among them, certain miRNAs have been identified as sex-related biomarkers, which are influenced by the hormonal and genetic background [4]. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize certain characteristics of studies reporting sex-related miRNA differences in peripheral samples of subjects with AD, PD, and ALS.

5.1. Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia

We found several studies investigating some miRNAs as peripheral sex-specific biomarkers for AD and frontotemporal dementia (FTD).
Grasso and coauthors when analyzing plasma samples in a population of 48 patients with FTD and 46 healthy controls found significant downregulation of miR-663a, miR-502-3p, and miR-206 (p = 0.0001, p = 0.0002, p = 0.02, respectively) in FTD patients. However, stratification of data according to sex showed significant differences in miR-663a and miR-502-3p in both males and females and significant differences in miR-206 only in male subjects. To obtain a discriminating measure between FTD subjects and healthy controls (HCs), they calculated a combined score of three miRNAs when applying a Bayesian approach and obtained a classifier accuracy of 84.4%. Combined miRNA levels showed higher sensitivity (100%) and specificity (87.5%) in distinguishing FTD patients from HCs in males versus females. Interestingly, miR-502-3p is located on the X-chromosome (miRbase) [81]. Moreover, they found a significant difference in let-7e-5p levels between HCs and FTD females, but no difference was found between males and in the overall population.
Sex-specific differences in miR-206 were also evaluated in a longitudinal study including a five-year follow up, with the aim of identifying a biomarker capable of predicting the conversion from MCI to dementia by analyzing miRNA expression in 96 plasma samples (30 MCI patients, 35 AD patients, 31 HCs). The results showed miR-206 as the most promising marker, however with no sex-related differences [82].
Another study on plasma samples investigated miR-127-3p levels in patients with FTD (54 samples) compared with patients with AD patients (20 samples) and controls (53 samples). The results showed an underexpression of this miRNA in FTD samples. After stratifying data according to sex, the same trend was observed in both males and females, with good ROC diagnostic values [83]. The area under the curve (AUC) values of miR-127-3p for discrimination between FTD and HC was 0.7684 in males and 0.8264 in females, and for discrimination between FTD and AD was 0.9263 in males and 0.8714 in females.
Denk and colleagues [84] investigated the differential expression of miRNAs in serum samples of 38 HCs, 48 patients with FTD, and 47 patients with AD. Of the investigated miRNAs, miR-103a-3p, miR-106a-5p, and miR-1246 were the best at discriminating between FTD and AD in males but not in females. Similar results were found in CSF samples.
Interestingly, certain sex-specific differences in diagnostic accuracy were reported in the study by Siedlecki-Wullich and colleagues [85]. They replicated an analysis of biomarkers in plasma samples of subjects with AD, FTD, and MCI. The aim of the study was to validate certain miRNAs as biomarkers capable of discriminating between the three conditions. The results showed a significant upregulation of miR-92a-1-3p in AD compared with control, overexpression of miR-181c-5p and miR-210-3p in both AD and MCI, while no miRNA was dysregulated in FTD. The ROC diagnostic value for males was better than for female, in particular the specificity was higher in males, while sensitivity was higher in females. The AUC values for all three miRNAs showed that their ability to discriminate between MCI and controls switched from a value of 0.89 with 84.62% sensibility and 85.71% specificity in females to a value 0.96 with 100% sensibility and 85.71% specificity in males. The AUC values for the three miRNAs in discriminating between AD and HC increased from 0.85 (92.86% sensibility, 71.43% specificity) in females to 0.94 (75% sensibility, 100% specificity) in males [85].
However, not all studies on sex differences in miRNA levels reported positive results. Galimberti and colleagues performed a study in 2014 on serum samples from 22 patients with AD, 10 with FTD, 18 with non-inflammatory conditions, and 8 controls with inflammatory diseases. They found some downregulated miRNAs in AD versus all other groups, but no sex-related differences were reported [86]. Another study was performed on blood samples from a large population of 465 subjects, including two control groups (healthy and other neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorders) compared with patients with AD and MCI. The results showed a dysregulation of almost twelve miRNAs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease but none with differential expression in males and females [87]. Similarly, Cosìn-Tomàs et al. found two downregulated miRNAs in plasma samples from patients with AD compared to healthy controls, describing no sex-related differences [88]

5.2. Parkinson’s Disease

Looking at PD, a study performed on 667 plasma samples obtained from 269 patients with PD, 222 HCs, and 176 neurodegenerative disease controls (NDC) [89] reported a higher expression of miR-132 in neurons and altered levels in other neurodegenerative diseases. The results showed a significantly higher expression of this miRNA in males with PD but not in females with PD compared to controls, while no differences were observed between PD and ND controls. Further analyses of miR-132 and Nurr1 levels (a protein involved in dopamine regulation) showed a negative correlation between higher levels of miR-132 and lower levels of this protein, suggesting a possible role of this miRNA in Nurr1 regulation.
The MiR-132 family, along with miR-134, was reported in a validation study, where 50 plasma samples collected from MCI patients and 50 from healthy controls were analyzed. The discrimination between controls and MCI according to ROC was more accurate in males for miR-132 family members (miR-128, miR-132, miR-87) and in females for miR-134 family (miR-134, miR-323, miR-382) [90].
A study on serum samples [91] reported the analysis of the miRNA-29 family in a population of 80 PD patients and 80 HCs. The levels of miR-29a and miR-29c were significantly higher in females than in males in both controls and in patients with PD.
In another study on salivary samples, Chen and colleagues [92] enrolled 30 patients with PD and 30 HCs and analyzed microRNAs that regulate the deglycase DJ-1 gene expression, finding no differences between sexes.

5.3. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Regarding ALS, Toivonen [93] analyzed the serum samples of 12 patients with ALS and 12 HCs. When comparing results from male patients with male controls, no significant differences were observed, although miR-206 was close to significance (3.4-fold upregulation, p = 0.1). When comparing results between female patients and controls, miR-206, miR-133b, and miR-145 were upregulated (5.4-fold p = 0.02; 2-fold p = 0.03; 1.4-fold p = 0.04). As described above, sex-related miR-206 levels were investigated in two other studies on FTD [81] and AD [82].

6. Conclusions and Futures Perspectives

Several drugs for the treatment of NDs have been investigated in clinical trials in the last 15 years, but all with inconclusive results. No new medications have been recently approved by the drug regulatory agencies, and effective pharmacological treatments for NDs are still lacking. A possible reason for this failure might be linked to the idea that only very early interventions can be effective in these conditions. However, another possible reason could be the view of neurodegeneration as a homogeneous group of diseases. It is important to underline that there is no “one-size-fits-all” treatment that can be useful for all patients; rather, according to the concept of precision medicine, treatments must be personalized, addressing the etiology of the disease in each person. In this context, it could be useful to characterize specific subpopulations of patients by considering genetic and epigenetic factors, and gender differences could be one of these factors. Epidemiological data confirm strong male–female disparities in the onset and progression of AD, PD, and ALS. Although these differences could be partly due to gender-related specific behaviors, recent results also indicate biological variations as key players. Among them, microRNAs seem to have an important function in defining a molecular sex-related asset due to their sex hormone regulation. In this review, we reported sex-specific differences of peripheral miRNA levels in some NDs. As an example, miR-206, which is underexpressed in males with FTD and overexpressed in males with ALS, is regulated by hormones [94,95,96]. MiR-132 was found to be a particularly expressed miRNA in the cerebellum of males [97], which might explain why Yang and co-authors found it to be more upregulated in plasma samples of male patients with PD. Likewise, miR-29a and miR-29c were found to be more expressed in the cerebellum of females, which might link to the upregulation in the sera of female PD patients [91].
However, few papers have shown significant differences between miRNA expression levels in males and females in NDs. This may not necessarily be due to a lack of sex-specific correlation, but to the fact that most of these studies did have the primary objective of investigating gender differences, meaning sex was not considered as part of the investigated biological factors. Moreover, the number of studies that have performed a subgroup analysis of males and females is very low compared to the large number of papers published on peripheral miRNAs. Failing to consider the possible differences between males and females in the evaluation of biomarkers such as miRNAs could introduce a sex bias in studies, increasing the risk of missing some of these sex-related specificities. To date, no miRNA has been practically implied in neurodegenerative diseases.
This could be due to the complexity of these pathologies, but also to the variability of the types of study, the diagnostic criteria used for enrolment, the sizes of the populations studied, the types of tissue chosen, and the methodologies used to study the biomarkers. Future studies should aim to adopt a more thorough methodology to consider sex among biological variables when studies on biomarkers are designed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P. and A.C. (Annamaria Confaloni); writing—original draft preparation, P.P., M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B., V.M., G.P., A.C. (Alessio Crestini), M.C., A.C. (Alessandra Carè) and E.O.; table preparation, P.P. and V.M.; supervision, A.C. (Annamaria Confaloni) and A.C. (Alessandra Carè). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was fund by CCPP agreement (project no. AB32 CUP I85H20000200005).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aldewachi, H.; Al-Zidan, R.N.; Conner, M.T.; Salman, M.M. High-Throughput Screening Platforms in the Discovery of Novel Drugs for Neurodegenerative Diseases. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Grasso, M.; Piscopo, P.; Confaloni, A.; Denti, M.A. Circulating miRNAs as biomarkers for neurodegenerative disorders. Molecules 2014, 19, 6891–6910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Piscopo, P.; Albani, D.; Castellano, A.E.; Forloni, G.; Confaloni, A. Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration and MicroRNAs. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2016, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sharma, S.; Eghbali, M. Influence of sex differences on microRNA gene regulation in disease. Biol. Sex Differ. 2014, 51, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Langbaum, J.B.; Fleisher, A.S.; Chen, K.; Ayutyanont, N.; Lopera, F.; Quiroz, Y.T.; Caselli, R.J.; Tariot, P.N.; Reiman, E.M. Ushering in the study and treatment of preclinical Alzheimer disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2013, 9, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Schapira, A.H. Recent developments in biomarkers in Parkinson disease. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2013, 26, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Jack, C.R., Jr.; Petersen, R.C.; Xu, Y.C.; O’Brien, P.C.; Smith, G.E.; Ivnik, R.J.; Boeve, B.F.; Waring, S.C.; Tangalos, E.G.; Kokmen, E. Prediction of AD with MRI-based hippocampal volume in mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 1999, 52, 1397–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Choo, I.H.; Ni, R.; Schöll, M.; Wall, A.; Almkvist, O.; Nordberg, A. Combination of 18F-FDG PET and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers as a better predictor of the progression to Alzheimer’s disease in mild cognitive impairment patients. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2013, 33, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Grimmer, T.; Wutz, C.; Alexopoulos, P.; Drzezga, A.; Förster, S.; Förstl, H.; Goldhardt, O.; Ortner, M.; Sorg, C.; Kurz, A. Visual Versus Fully Automated Analyses of 18F-FDG and Amyloid PET for Prediction of Dementia Due to Alzheimer Disease in Mild Cognitive Impairment. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Oda, S.; Yokoi, T. Recent progress in the use of microRNAs as biomarkers for drug-induced toxicities in contrast to traditional biomarkers: A comparative review. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 2021, 37, 100372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pietraforte, D.; Straface, E.; Piscopo, P.; Vona, R.; Confaloni, A. Sex-related biomarkers in cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disorders. Ann. Ist Super Sanita 2016, 52, 230–239. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, Y.H.; Bai, S.F.; Yan, J.Q. Blood circulating miRNAs as biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomark. Med. 2019, 13, 1045–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van den Berg, M.M.J.; Krauskopf, J.; Ramaekers, J.G.; Kleinjans, J.C.S.; Prickaerts, J.; Briedé, J.J. Circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers for psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. Prog. Neurobiol. 2020, 185, 101732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gao, X.; Qiao, Y.; Han, D.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, N. Enemy or partner: Relationship between intronic micrornas and their host genes. IUBMB Life 2012, 64, 835–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Klinge, C.M. miRNAs and estrogen action. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 23, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lam, E.W.F.; Shah, K.; Brosens, J.J. The diversity of sex steroid action: The role of micro-RNAs and FOXO transcription factors in cycling endometrium and cancer. J. Endocrinol. 2012, 212, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Waltering, K.; Porkka, K.P.; Jalava, S.E.; Urbanucci, A.; Kohonen, P.J.; Latonen, L.M.; Kallioniemi, O.P.; Jenster, G.; Visakorpi, T. Androgen regulation of micro-RNAs in prostate cancer. Prostate 2011, 71, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wang, W.L.W.; Chatterjee, N.; Chittur, S.V.; Welsh, J.; Tenniswood, M.P. Effects of 1α,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 and testosterone on miRNA and mRNA expression in LNCaP cells. Mol. Cancer 2011, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Murphy, S.J.; Lusardi, T.A.; Phillips, J.I.; Saugstad, J.A. Sex differences in microRNA expression during development in rat cortex. Neurochem. Int. 2014, 77, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kato, S.; Yokoyama, A.; Fujiki, R. Nuclear receptor coregulators merge transcriptional coregulation with epigenetic regulation. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2011, 36, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Tarallo, R.; Giurato, G.; Bruno, G.; Ravo, M.; Rizzo, F.; Salvati, A.; Ricciardi, L.; Marchese, G.; Cordella, A.; Rocco, T.; et al. The nuclear receptor Erβ engages AGO2 in regulation of gene transcription, RNA splicing and RISC loading. Genome Biol. 2017, 18, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Di Palo, A.; Siniscalchi, C.; Salerno, M.; Russo, A.; Gravholt, C.H.; Potenza, N. What microRNAs could tell us about the human X chromosome. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020, 77, 4069–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Carè, A.; Bellenghi, M.; Matarrese, P.; Gabriele, L.; Salvioli, S.; Malorni, W. Sex disparity in cancer: Roles of microRNAs and related functional players. Cell Death Differ. 2018, 25, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Berezikov, E.; Thuemmler, F.; van Laake, L.W.; Kondova, I.; Bontrop, R.; Cuppen, E.; Plasterk, R.H. Diversity of microRNAs in human and chimpanzee brain. Nat. Genet. 2006, 38, 1375–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nelson, P.T.; Keller, J.N. RNA in brain disease: No longer just “the messenger in the middle”. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 2007, 66, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Wang, W.; Kwon, E.J.; Tsai, L.H. MicroRNAs in learning, memory, and neurological diseases. Learn. Mem. 2012, 19, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Smirnova, L.; Gräfe, A.; Seiler, A.; Schumacher, S.; Nitsch, R.; Wulczyn, F.G. Regulation of miRNA expression during neural cell specification. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2005, 21, 1469–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. McNeill, E.; Van Vactor, D. MicroRNAs shape the neuronal landscape. Neuron 2012, 75, 363–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ziats, M.N.; Rennert, O.M. Identification of differentially expressed microRNAs across the developing human brain. Mol. Psychiatry 2014, 19, 848–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Cui, C.; Yang, W.; Shi, J.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, J.; Cui, Q.; Zhou, Y. Identification and Analysis of Human Sex-biased MicroRNAs. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2018, 16, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buoncervello, M.; Marconi, M.; Carè, A.; Piscopo, P.; Malorni, W.; Matarrese, P. Preclinical models in the study of sex differences. Clin. Sci. 2017, 131, 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loke, H.; Harley, V.; Lee, J. Biological factors underlying sex differences in neurological disorders. Int. J. Biochem. Cell. Biol. 2015, 65, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hanamsagar, R.; Bilbo, S.D. Sex differences in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders: Focus on microglial function and neuroinflammation during development. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016, 160, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Raghava, N.; Das, B.C.; Ray, S.K. Neuroprotective effects of estrogen in CNS injuries: Insights from animal models. Neurosci. Neuroecon. 2017, 6, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Spence, R.D.; Voskuhl, R.R. Neuroprotective effects of estrogens and androgens in CNS inflammation and neurodegeneration. Front. Neuroendocr. 2012, 33, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Siddiqui, A.N.; Siddiqui, N.; Khan, R.A.; Kalam, A.; Jabir, N.R.; Kamal, M.A.; Firoz, C.K.; Tabrez, S. Neuroprotective Role of Steroidal Sex Hormones: An Overview. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2016, 22, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Celec, P.; Ostatníková, D.; Hodosy, J. On the effects of testosterone on brain behavioral functions. Front. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Reeves, B.C.; Karimy, J.K.; Kundishora, A.J.; Mestre, H.; Cerci, H.M.; Matouk, C.; Alper, S.L.; Lundgaard, I.; Nedergaard, M.; Kahle, K.T. Glymphatic system impairment in Alzheimer’s disease and idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Trends Mol. Med. 2020, 26, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Iliff, J.J.; Chen, M.J.; Plog, B.A.; Zeppenfeld, D.M.; Soltero, M.; Yang, L.; Singh, I.; Deane, R.; Nedergaard, M. Impairment of glymphatic pathway function promotes tau pathology after traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 16180–16193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kitchen, P.; Salman, M.M.; Halsey, A.M.; Clarke-Bland, C.; MacDonald, J.A.; Ishida, H.; Vogel, H.J.; Almutiri, S.; Logan, A.; Kreida, S.; et al. Targeting Aquaporin-4 subcellular localization to treat central nervous system edema. Cell 2020, 181, 784–799.e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sylvain, N.J.; Salman, M.M.; Pushie, M.J.; Hou, H.; Meher, V.; Herlo, R.; Peeling, L.; Kelly, M.E. The effects of trifluoperazine on brain edema, aquaporin-4 expression and metabolic markers during the acute phase of stroke using photothrombotic mouse model. Biochimica et biophysica acta. Biomembranes 2021, 1863, 183573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hebert, L.E.; Weuve, J.; Scherr, P.A.; Evans, D.A. Alzheimer disease in the United States (2010–2050) estimated using the 2010 census. Neurology 2013, 80, 1778–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Brookmeyer, R.; Gray, S.; Kawas, C. Projections of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States and the public health impact of delaying disease onset. Am. J. Public Health 1998, 88, 1337–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ferretti, M.T.; Iulita, M.F.; Cavedo, E.; Chiesa, P.A.; Schumacher Dimech, A.; Santuccione Chadha, A.; Baracchi, F.; Girouard, H.; Misoch, S.; Giacobini, E.; et al. Women’s Brain Project and the Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative. Sex differences in Alzheimer disease—The gateway to precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2018, 14, 457–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Andersen, K.; Launer, L.J.; Dewey, M.E.; Letenneur, L.; Ott, A.; Copeland, J.R.; Dartigues, J.F.; Kragh-Sorensen, P.; Baldereschi, M.; Brayne, C.; et al. Gender differences in the incidence of AD and vascular dementia: The EURODEM Studies. EURODEM Incidence Research Group. Neurology 1999, 53, 1992–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Beam, C.R.; Kaneshiro, C.; Jang, J.Y.; Reynolds, C.A.; Pedersen, N.L.; Gatz, M. differences between women and men in incidence rates of Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2018, 64, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Brayne, C.; Gill, C.; Huppert, F.A.; Barkley, C.; Gehlhaar, E.; Girling, D.M.; O’Connor, D.W.; Paykel, E.S. Incidence of clinically diagnosed subtypes of dementia in an elderly population. Br. J. Psychiatry 1995, 167, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Edland, S.D.; Rocca, W.A.; Petersen, R.C.; Cha, R.H.; Kokmen, E. Dementia and Alzheimer disease incidence rates do not vary by sex in Rochester, Minn. Arch. Neurol. 2002, 59, 1589–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tom, S.E.; Hubbard, R.A.; Crane, P.K.; Haneuse, S.J.; Bowen, J.; McCormick, W.C.; McCurry, S.; Larson, E.B. Characterization of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in an older population: Updated incidence and life expectancy with and without dementia. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Borenstein, A.R.; Wu, Y.; Bowen, J.D.; McCormick, W.C.; Uomoto, J.; McCurry, S.M.; Schellenberg, G.D.; Larson, E.B. Incidence rates of dementia, Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia in the Japanese American population in Seattle, WA: The Kame Project. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 2014, 28, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ruitenberg, A.; Ott, A.; van Swieten, J.C.; Hofman, A.; Breteler, M.M. Incidence of dementia: Does gender make a difference? Neurobiol. Aging 2001, 22, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bdone, M.P.; Salman, M.M.; Titus, H.E.; Amini, E.; Andersen, J.V.; Chakraborti, B.; Diuba, A.V.; Dubouskaya, T.G.; Ehrke, E.; Espindola de Freitas, A.; et al. The energetic brain—A review from students to students. J. Neurochem. 2019, 151, 139–165. [Google Scholar]
  53. Barbati, C.; Pierdominici, M.; Gambardella, L.; Malchiodi Albedi, F.; Karas, R.H.; Rosano, G.; Malorni, W.; Ortona, E. Cell surface estrogen receptor alpha is upregulated during subchronic metabolic stress and inhibits neuronal cell degeneration. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zárate, S.; Stevnsner, T.; Gredilla, R. Role of Estrogen and Other Sex Hormones in Brain Aging. Neuroprotection and DNA Repair. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Moffat, S.D.; Zonderman, A.B.; Metter, E.J.; Kawas, C.; Blackman, M.R.; Harman, S.M.; Resnick, S.M. Free testosterone and risk for Alzheimer disease in older men. Neurology 2004, 62, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Rosario, E.R.; Chang, L.; Stanczyk, F.Z.; Pike, C. Age-related testosterone depletion and the development of Alzheimer disease. JAMA 2004, 292, 1431–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rosario, E.R.; Chang, L.; Head, E.H.; Stanczyk, F.Z.; Pike, C.J. Brain levels of sex steroid hormones in men and women during normal aging and in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuobiol. Anging 2011, 32, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Baba, M.; Nakajo, S.; Tu, P.H.; Tomita, T.; Nakaya, K.; Lee, V.M.; Trojanowski, J.Q.; Iwatsubo, T. Aggregation of alpha-synuclein in Lewy bodies of sporadic Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Am. J. Pathol. 1998, 152, 879–884. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wakabayashi, K.; Tanji, K.; Odagiri, S.; Miki, Y.; Mori, F.; Takahashi, H. The Lewy body in Parkinson’s disease and related neurodegenerative disorders. Mol. Neurobiol. 2013, 47, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Baldereschi, M.; Di Carlo, A.; Rocca, W.A.; Vanni, P.; Maggi, S.; Perissinotto, E.; Grigoletto, F.; Amaducci, L.; Inzitari, D. Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism in a longitudinal study: Two-fold higher incidence in men. ILSA Working Group. Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Neurology 2000, 55, 1358–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Solla, P.; Cannas, A.; Ibba, F.C.; Loi, F.; Corona, M.; Orofino, G.; Marrosu, M.G.; Marrosu, F. Gender differences in motor and non-motor symptoms among Sardinian patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Sci. 2012, 323, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gillies, G.E.; Pienaar, I.S.; Vohra, S.; Qamhawi, Z. Sex differences in Parkinson’s disease. Front. Neuroendocr. 2014, 35, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Dahodwala, N.; Shah, K.; He, Y.; Wu, S.S.; Schmidt, P.; Cubillos, F.; Willis, A.W. Sex disparities in access to caregiving in Parkinson disease. Neurology 2018, 90, e48–e54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Cantuti-Castelvetri, I.; Keller-McGandy, C.; Bouzou, B.; Asteris, G.; Clark, T.W.; Frosch, M.P.; Standaert, D.G. Effects of gender on nigral gene expression and parkinson disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2007, 26, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Simunovic, F.; Yi, M.; Wang, Y.; Macey, L.; Brown, L.T.; Krichevsky, A.M.; Andersen, S.L.; Stephens, R.M.; Benes, F.M.; Sonntag, K.C. Gene expression profiling of substantia nigra dopamine neurons: Further insights into Parkinson’s disease pathology. Brain J. Neurol. 2009, 132, 1795–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Litim, N.; Morissette, M.; Di Paolo, T. Neuroactive gonadal drugs for neuroprotection in male and female models of Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2016, 67, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Smith, K.M.; Dahodwala, N. Sex differences in Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders. Exp. Neurol. 2014, 259, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bae, Y.H.; Hwang, J.Y.; Kim, Y.H.; Ko, J.Y. Anti- oxidative neuroprotection by estrogens in mouse cortical cultures. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2000, 15, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Sawada, H.; Shimohama, S. Estrogens and Parkinson disease: Novel approach for neuroprotection. Endocrine 2003, 21, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sato, K.; Hatano, T.; Yamashiro, K.; Kagohashi, M.; Nishioka, K.; Izawa, N.; Mochizuki, H.; Hattori, N.; Mori, H.; Mizuno, Y. Juntendo Parkinson Study Group. Prognosis of Parkinson’s disease: Time to stage III, IV, V, and to motor fluctuations. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 1384–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ragonese, P.; D’amelio, M.; Savettieri, G. Implications for estrogens in Parkinson’s disease: An epidemiological approach. Ann. N. Y. Acad Sci. 2006, 1089, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Okun, M.S.; McDonald, W.M.; Delong, M.R. Refractory nonmotor symptoms in male patients with Parkinson disease due to testosterone deficiency: A common unrecognized comorbidity. Arch. Neurol. 2002, 59, 807–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Norris, S.P.; Likanje, M.N.; Andrews, J.A. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Update on clinical management. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2020, 33, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xu, L.; Liu, T.; Liu, L.; Yao, X.; Chen, L.; Fan, D.; Zhan, S.; Wang, S. Global variation in prevalence and incidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neurol. 2020, 267, 944–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McCombe, P.A.; Henderson, R.D. Effects of gender in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Gend. Med. 2010, 7, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Manjaly, Z.R.; Scott, K.M.; Abhinav, K.; Wijesekera, L.; Ganesalingam, J.; Goldstein, L.H.; Janssen, A.; Dougherty, A.; Willey, E.; Stanton, B.R.; et al. The sex ratio in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A population based study. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 2010, 11, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kim, J.; Kim, T.Y.; Cho, K.S.; Kim, H.N.; Koh, J.Y. Autophagy activation and neuroprotection by progesterone in the G93A-SOD1 transgenic mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurobiol. Dis. 2013, 59, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Vivekananda, U.; Manjalay, Z.R.; Ganesalingam, J.; Simms, J.; Shaw, C.E.S.; Leigh, P.N.; Turner, M.R.; AL-Chalabi, A. Low index-to-ring finger length ration in sporadic ALS supports prenatally defined motor neuronal vulnerability. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2011, 82, 635–637. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Gargiulo-Monachelli, G.M.; Sivori, M.; Meyer, M.; Sica, R.E.P.; De Nicola, A.F.; Gonzalez-Deniselle, M.C. Circulating gonadal and adrenal steroids in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Possible markers of susceptibility and outcome. Horm. Metab. Res. 2014, 46, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Piscopo, P.; Rivabene, R.; Galimberti, D.; Crestini, A.; Talarico, G.; Vanacore, N.; Scarpini, E.; Bruno, G.; Confaloni, A. Gender effects on plasma PGRN levels in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A preliminary study. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2013, 35, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Grasso, M.; Piscopo, P.; Talarico, G.; Ricci, L.; Crestini, A.; Tosto, G.; Gasparini, M.; Bruno, G.; Denti, M.A.; Confaloni, A. Plasma microRNA profiling distinguishes patients with frontotemporal dementia from healthy subjects. Neurobiol. Aging 2019, 84, 240.e1–240.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kenny, A.; McArdle, H.; Calero, M.; Rabano, A.; Madden, S.F.; Adamson, K.; Forster, R.; Spain, E.; Prehn, J.H.M.; Henshall, D.C.; et al. Elevated Plasma microRNA-206 Levels Predict Cognitive Decline and Progression to Dementia from Mild Cognitive Impairment. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Piscopo, P.; Grasso, M.; Puopolo, M.; D’Acunto, E.; Talarico, G.; Crestini, A.; Gasparini, M.; Campopiano, R.; Gambardella, S.; Castellano, A.E.; et al. Circulating miR-127-3p as a Potential Biomarker for Differential Diagnosis in Frontotemporal Dementia. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2018, 65, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Denk, J.; Oberhauser, F.; Kornhuber, J.; Wiltfang, J.; Fassbender, K.; Schroeter, M.L.; Volk, A.E.; Diehl-Schmid, J.; Prudlo, J.; Danek, A.; et al. FTLDc study group. Specific serum and CSF microRNA profiles distinguish sporadic behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia compared with Alzheimer patients and cognitively healthy controls. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Siedlecki-Wullich, D.; Català-Solsona, J.; Fábregas, C.; Hernández, I.; Clarimon, J.; Lleó, A.; Boada, M.; Saura, C.A.; Rodríguez-Álvarez, J.; Miñano-Molina, A.J. Altered microRNAs related to synaptic function as potential plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2019, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Galimberti, D.; Villa, C.; Fenoglio, C.; Serpente, M.; Ghezzi, L.; Cioffi, S.M.; Arighi, A.; Fumagalli, G.; Scarpini, E. Circulating miRNAs as potential biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2014, 42, 1261–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ludwig, N.; Fehlmann, T.; Kern, F.; Gogol, M.; Maetzler, W.; Deutscher, S.; Gurlit, S.; Schulte, C.; von Thaler, A.K.; Deuschle, C.; et al. Machine Learning to Detect Alzheimer’s Disease from Circulating Non-coding RNAs. Gen. Prot. Bioinf. 2019, 17, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Cosìn-Tomàs, M.; Antonell, A.; Lladò, A.; Alcolea, D.; Fortea, J.; Ezquerra, M.; Llèo, A.; Martì, M.J.; Pallas, M.; Sanchez-Valle, R.; et al. Biomarkers of Alzheimer’s Disease: Potential and limitations. Mol. Neurobiol. 2017, 54, 5550–5562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yang, Z.; Li, T.; Li, S.; Wei, M.; Qi, H.; Shen, B.; Chang, R.C.; Le, W.; Piao, F. Altered expression levels of microRNA-132 and Nurr1 in peripheral blood of parkinson’s disease: Potential disease biormarkers. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2019, 10, 2243–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sheinerman, K.S.; Tsivinsky, V.G.; Abdullah, L.; Crawford, F.; Umansky, S.R. Plasma microRNA biomarkers for detection of mild cognitive impairment: Biomarker validation study. Aging 2013, 5, 925–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Bai, X.; Tang, Y.; Yu, M.; Wu, L.; Liu, F.; Ni, J.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Fei, J.; Wang, W.; et al. Downregulation of blood serum microRNA 29 family in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Chen, Y.; Zheng, J.; Su, L.; Chen, F.; Zhu, R.; Chen, X.; Ye, Q. Increased salivary microRNAs that regulate DJ-1 gene expression as potential markers for Parkinson’s disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2020, 12, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Toivonen, J.M.; Manzano, R.; Oliván, S.; Zaragoza, P.; García-Redondo, A.; Osta, R. MicroRNA-2016: A potential circulating biomarker candidate for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Kondo, N.; Toyama, T.; Sugiura, H.; Fujii, Y.; Yamashita, H. miR-206 Expression is down-regulated in estrogen receptor alpha-positive human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 5004–5008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Adams, B.D.; Furneaux, H.; White, B.A. The micro-ribonucleic acid (miRNA) miR-206 targets the human estrogen receptor-alpha (ERalpha) and represses ERalpha messenger RNA and protein expression in breast cancer cell lines. Mol. Endocrinol. 2007, 21, 1132–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Chua, F.Y.; Adams, B.D. Androgen receptor and miR-206 regulation in prostate cancer. Transcription 2017, 8, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Olsen, L.; Klausen, M.; Helboe, L.; Nielsen, F.C.; Werge, T. MicroRNAs show mutually exclusive expression patterns in the brain of adult male rats. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Main features of studies included in the review.
Table 1. Main features of studies included in the review.
StudiesCountrySpecimenParticipantsSample SizeAge (Mean ± SD)Sex (M/F)
CasesControlsCasesControlsCasesControls
Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia
[81]ItalyPlasmaFTD/HC484672 ± 873 ± 720 (42%)/28 (58%)18 (39%)/28 (61%)
[87]USA, GermanyBloodAD
MCI
HC/OND		145 AD
38 MCI		214 HC
68 OND		72.9 ± 9.8
71.6 ± 6.2		68.9 ± 7.8
57 ± 18.7		76 (52%)/69 (47%) AD
18 (47%)/20 (53%)MCI		103 (48%)/111 (52%) HC
23 (34%)/45 (66%) OND
[84]GermanyCSF, SerumFTD/AD/HC96 FTD
95 AD		8265 ± 9.2
65 ± 9.3		64 ± 11.378 (81%)/18 (19%) FTD
69 (73%)/26 (27%) AD		58 (71%)/24 (29%)
[83]ItalyPlasmaFTD/AD/HC54 FTD
20 AD		5370.3 ± 8.8
71.3 ± 8		71.6 ± 7.319 (35%)/35 (65%) FTD
10 (50%)/10 (50%) AD		20 (38%)/33 (62%)
[88]SpainPlasmaAD/PAD
HC		36 AD
36 PAD		3668.1
68.9		66.6415 (42%)/21 (58%) AD
18 (50%)/18 (50%) PAD		16 (44%)/20 (56%)
[86]ItalySerum
CSF		AD/FTD
NINDC/INDC		22 AD
10 FTD		18NINDC
8 INDC		72.7 ± 0.6
69.4 ± 0.6		68.8± 0.71
66.5± 0.22		8 (36%)/14 (64%) AD
2 (20%)/8 (80%) FTD		13 (72%)/5 (28%) NINDC
0 (0%)/8 (100%) INDC
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
[82]SpainPlasmaMCI/AD/HC30 MCI
35 AD		3176.8 ± 4.0
84.6 ± 3.5		75 ± 4.713 (43%)/17 (57%) MCI
14 (40%)/21 (60%) AD		17 (55%)/14 (45%)
[85]SpainPlasmaMCI/AD/HC26 MCI
56 AD		1472 ± 8.5
77.8 ±6.7		68.3± 8.9910 (38%)/16 (62%) MCI
15 (27%)/41 (73%) AD		7 (50%)/7 (50%)
[90]USAPlasmaMCI/HC505068.265.121 (42%)/29 (58%)26 (52%)/24 (48%)
Parkinson’s disease
[92]ChinaSalivaPD/HC303063.2 ± 10.259.7 ± 12.820 (67%)/10 (33%)16 (53%)/14 (47%)
[89]ChinaPlasmaPD/HC/NDC269222 HC
176 NDC		66.1 ± 0.6166.2 ± 0.61
66.2 ± 0.74		157 (58%)/112 (42%)130 (59%)/92 (41%) HC
105 (60%)/71 (40%) NDC
[91]ChinaSerumPD/HC808064.0 ± 5.863.3 ± 5.448 (60%)/32 (40%)48 (60%)/32 (40%)
Amotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
[93]NRSerumALS/HC121257.0 ± 12.254.0 ± 14.56 (50%)/6 (50%)6 (50%)/6 (50%)
AD: Alzheimer’s Disease; MCI: Mild Cognitive Impairment; FTD: Frontotemporal Dementia; HC: Healthy Controls; PD: Parkinson’s Disease; NDC: Neurodegenerative Disease Controls; OND: Other Neurological Diseases; PAD: Preclinical AD; NINDC: Non-Inflammatory Disease Controls; INDC: Inflammatory Disease Controls; ALS: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.
Table
Table 2. Summary of differences between sexes in miRNA levels from studies including patients with NDs.
Table 2. Summary of differences between sexes in miRNA levels from studies including patients with NDs.
StudiesSpecimenmiRNADifferences between SexesPossible Roles
Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia
[81]PlasmamiR-206
miR-502-3p, miR-663a
let-7e-5p		Downregulated in FTD vs. HC males (p < 0.05).
Underexpressed both in males (p < 0.01; p < 0.1) and females (p < 0.1; p < 0.01).
Downregulated in females with FTD (p < 0.05)		miR-206: synaptogenesis and neurogenesis.
miR-502-3p: schizophrenia.
miR-663a: inflammatory response, neuronal differentiation and development
[87]Blood10 miRNAs differentially expressedNo differencesNotch signaling pathway.
[84]CSF, Serum41 miRNAs differentially expressed: miR-103a-3p, miR-106a-5p, miR-1246No differences in expression level.
AUC values better in males than females (miR-103a-3p: AUC = 0.80; miR-106a-5p: AUC = 0.80; miR-1246: AUC = 0.85)		miR-103a-3p and miR-106a-5p: involved in neuropathological processes by targeting LRP1, CDK5R1, DLG4 (Chang et al., 2017), APP, BACE1, PSEN1 (Yilmaz et al., 2016). miR1246: not yet studied
[83]PlasmamiR-127-3pDownregulated in FTD with respect to AD or HC both in males (p < 0.0001; p < 0.05) and females (p < 0.001; p < 0.0001)neuronal proliferation, differentiation and development
[88]PlasmamiR-34a-5p, miR-545-3pNo differencesmiR-34a-5p: synaptic plasticity, glutamate receptors, potassium/sodium channels, antiapoptotic protein BCL-2 and SIRT1, inhibits pentose phosphate pathway in neurons and the mitochondrial functions.
miR-545-3p targets the mRNA of the APOE receptor involved in Aβ clearance
[86]Serum, CSFmiR-125b, miR-6bNo differencescell-cell communication
Mild Cognitive Impairment
[82]PlasmamiR-206No differencesneuronal survival, differentiation and signals transmission
[85]PlasmamiR-92a-1-3p, miR-181c-5p, miR-210-3pNo differences in expression levels.
The ROCs show better diagnostic power in males (AUC = 0.957) than in females (AUC = 0.821)		synaptic plasticity, especially the glutammaergic ones
[90]Plasma6 miRNAs analysed:
miR-132 sets
miR-134 sets		No differences in expression levels.
Better accuracy for male miR-132 sets of ROC (AUC = 0.99) compared with female (AUC = 0.98) and general ROCs (AUC better value = 0.97), and for female miR-134 sets of ROC (AUC = 0.96) compared with male (AUC = 0.90) and general ROCs (AUC better value = 0.93)		miR-132 and miR-134 family: Tau network and neuron growth
Parkinson’s disease
[92]SalivamiR-874No differencesSynaptic function, morphogenesis, neurotransmitter regulation
[89]PlasmamiR-132Upregulated in male PD (p < 0.01).Negative correlation with Nurr 1
[91]SerummiR-29a, miR-29b, miR-29cUpregulated in female PD (p = 0.041; p = 0.0062; p = 0.0107).Neurons survival, maturation, proliferation, synaptic plasticity, and morphogenesis
Amotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
[93]SerummiR-206Upregulated in female ALS (p = 0.02)synaptogenesis and neurogenesis
AD: Alzheimer’s Disease; MCI: Mild Cognitive Impairment; FTD: Frontotemporal Dementia; PD: Parkinson’s Disease; ALS: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; AUC: Area Under the Curve.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Piscopo, P.; Bellenghi, M.; Manzini, V.; Crestini, A.; Pontecorvi, G.; Corbo, M.; Ortona, E.; Carè, A.; Confaloni, A. A Sex Perspective in Neurodegenerative Diseases: microRNAs as Possible Peripheral Biomarkers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094423

AMA Style

Piscopo P, Bellenghi M, Manzini V, Crestini A, Pontecorvi G, Corbo M, Ortona E, Carè A, Confaloni A. A Sex Perspective in Neurodegenerative Diseases: microRNAs as Possible Peripheral Biomarkers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(9):4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094423

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piscopo, Paola, Maria Bellenghi, Valeria Manzini, Alessio Crestini, Giada Pontecorvi, Massimo Corbo, Elena Ortona, Alessandra Carè, and Annamaria Confaloni. 2021. "A Sex Perspective in Neurodegenerative Diseases: microRNAs as Possible Peripheral Biomarkers" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 9: 4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094423

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop