Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

N6-methyladenine RNA methylation epigenetic modification and diabetic microvascular complications

Wang Y., Zou J., Zhou H.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39296713
PMCID
PMC11408340
DOI
10.3389/fendo.2024.1462146
Citations
4

Abstract (original English)

N6-methyladensine (m 6 A) has been identified as the best-characterized and the most abundant mRNA modification in eukaryotes. It can be dynamically regulated, removed, and recognized by its specific cellular components (respectively called "writers," "erasers," "readers") and have become a hot research field in a variety of biological processes and diseases. Currently, the underlying molecular mechanisms of m 6 A epigenetic modification in diabetes mellitus (DM) and diabetic microvascular complications have not been extensively clarified. In this review, we focus on the effects and possible mechanisms of m 6 A as possible potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets in the treatment of DM and diabetic microvascular complications.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
AnimalsHumansDiabetic AngiopathiesDiabetes MellitusAdenineEpigenesis, GeneticMethylationRNA Methylation

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research