Cited by 679Genetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesMicroRNA in disease regulationGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 22 of the 45 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

The Bifunctional microRNA miR-9/miR-9* Regulates REST and CoREST and Is Downregulated in Huntington's Disease

Open access
Packer, Amy N., Xing, Yi, Harper, Scott Q., Jones, Lesley, Davidson, Beverly L.·2008·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The transcription factor REST silences neuronal gene expression in non-neuronal cells. In neurons, the protein is sequestered in the cytoplasm in part through binding to huntingtin. Polyglutamine expansions in huntingtin, which causes Huntington's disease (HD), abrogates REST-huntingtin binding. Consequently, REST translocates to the nucleus, occupies RE1 repressor sequences and decreases neuronal gene expression. In this work, we found that levels of several microRNAs (miRNAs) with upstream RE1 sites are decreased in HD patient cortices relative to healthy controls. Interestingly, one of these, the bifunctional brain enriched miR-9/miR-9*, targets two components of the REST complex: miR-9 targets REST and miR-9* targets CoREST. These data provide evidence for a double negative feedback loop between the REST silencing complex and the miRNAs it regulates.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In Huntington’s disease (HD) cortex, several REST-regulated microRNAs are downregulated with disease progression, including the bifunctional miR-9/miR-9*. The authors show that miR-9 targets REST and miR-9* targets CoREST, supporting a double-negative feedback loop between the REST silencing complex and the miRNAs it regulates.

Key findings

  • In Brodmann’s area 4 (BA4) cortex, five predicted REST-regulated miRNAs were significantly diminished with increasing HD grade: miR-9 (F(3,22)=9.876, p=0.0003), miR-9* (F(3,22)=6.799, p=0.0021), miR-29b (F(3,22)=3.658, p=0.0281), miR-124a (F(3,16)=7.833, p=0.001), and miR-132 (F(3,22)=7.611, p=0.0011).
  • A QPCR miRNA array of 365 mature miRNAs in control and early HD (grades 1 and 2) BA4 cortex found an additional 5 decreased miRNAs; miR-196a and miR-486 were increased by nearly 6-fold and 3-fold, respectively, in HD1 samples relative to controls.
  • miR-9 targets REST and miR-9* targets CoREST: pre-miR-9 reduced REST reporter and endogenous REST protein, while pre-miR-9* reduced CoREST reporter and endogenous CoREST protein; target site protectors rescued these effects.
  • Reducing REST expression in HEK 293 and NT2 cells enhanced miR-9 expression and processing (p<0.05), providing functional evidence for a negative feedback loop between the REST complex and REST-regulated miRNAs.

Methods

  • Postmortem BA4 cortex samples from healthy controls (n=7; ages 46–62) and HD grade 1 (n=7; ages 42–70), grade 2 (n=6; ages 45–78), grade 3 (n=2; ages 60–65), and grade 4 (n=4; ages 53–60); CAG repeat length was 16–21 for controls and 37–46 for HD, with postmortem time 2–20 hrs.
  • Mature miRNA expression was measured by quantitative PCR using TaqMan Array Human MiRNA Panel v1.0 or TaqMan MiRNA Assays, normalized to RNU48 and shown as fold change relative to controls.
  • Mechanistic validation used HEK 293 and NT2 cells with REST/CoREST 3′ UTR luciferase reporters, mU6 miR-9/9* or pre-miRs, anti-miRs, target site protectors, siRNAs, and Western blots; data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: human HD grade 3 (n=2) and grade 4 (n=4) samples were very small, and the human data are cross-sectional postmortem BA4 cortex only, limiting generalization across brain regions and disease stages.
  • Evident from the text: target validation relied heavily on HEK 293/NT2 cell lines and reporter assays rather than HD brain tissue, and the authors note it is currently under study whether diminished miRNAs result from or contribute to the dedifferentiation profile in HD cortex.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.2390-08.2008

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

16 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

23 Own result · 10 No full text of the sources · 10 Own interpretation · 9 Partly supported · 4 Supported · 3 Supported so far · 3 Sources not found · 2 Own method · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 36 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 15
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
29 of 29
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    miR-9 and miR-9* are processed from the same primary transcript from three genomic loci (miR-9-1, 9-2, and 9-3).

    “MiR-9 and miR-9*, which decreased early in HD (Fig 1A), are processed from the same primary transcript from 3 genomic loci (miR-9-1, 9-2 and 9-3); miR-9-1 and miR-9-3 both have upstream RE1 sequences that is can be occupied by REST (Conaco et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2008).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The postmortem brain samples from Huntington's disease patients and controls are representative of the disease process and are not confounded by post-mortem interval or other factors.

    “Post-mortem time for brain samples was 2 – 20 hrs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed miRNA expression changes in Brodmann's area 4 cortex are attributable to Huntington's disease progression rather than to age, sex, or other demographic differences between groups.

    “Tissues were collected from Brodmann’s area 4 (BA4) cortex of healthy control (n = 7; ages 46 – 62) and HD grade 1 (n = 7; ages 42-70), 2 (n = 6; ages 45 -78), 3 (n = 2; ages 60 - 65) and 4 (n = 4; 53 - 60).”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 16) = 7.833reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(3,16) = 7.833, p = .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 6) = 16.134reported p = .0034 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(2,6) = 16.134, p = .0034”

  • ConsistentF(3, 22) = 9.876reported p = .0003 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,22) = 9.876, p = .0003”

  • ConsistentF(3, 22) = 6.799reported p = .0021 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(3,22) = 6.799, p = .0021”

  • ConsistentF(3, 22) = 3.658reported p = .0281 · recomputed p = .028

    “F(3,22) = 3.658, p = .0281”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 333.08reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 6) = 333.08, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 12) = 26.006reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,12) = 26.006, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 12) = 24.017reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,12) =24.017, p = .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 9) = 35.524reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,9) = 35.524, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 19.539reported p = .0024 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(2,6) = 19.539, p = .0024”

  • ConsistentF(2, 9) = 7.552reported p = .0119 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(2,9) = 7.552, p = .0119”

  • ConsistentF(2, 9) = 38.395reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,9) = 38.395, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 11) = 41.612reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,11) = 41.612, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 11) = 7.423reported p = .0091 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(2,11) = 7.423, p = .0091”

  • ConsistentF(2, 9) = 11.173reported p = .0036 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(2,9) = 11.173, p = .0036”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 32.882reported p = .0006 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,6) =32.882, p = .0006”

16 of 16

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 679

Metadata

Authors
Packer, A. N., Xing, Y., Harper, S. Q., Jones, L., & Davidson, B. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Davidson, Beverly L.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2008-12-31
Volume
28
Issue
53
Pages
14341-14346
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2001003536
Cited by
679
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 69
FWCI
16.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Hereditary Disease Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA025132)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS050210)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD044093)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › MicroRNA in disease regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
miR-9, rest, CoREST, Huntington's disease, polyglutamine expansion, huntingtin, microRNA regulation, negative feedback loop, neuronal gene expression
MeSH terms
RE1-Silencing Transcription Factor, Aged, Brain, Cell Line, Transformed, DNA-Binding Proteins, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Humans, Huntington Disease, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Postmortem Changes, Repressor Proteins, Transfection, Down-Regulation, Disease Progression, 3' Untranslated Regions, MicroRNAs, Co-Repressor Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review