👤 Roberta Lizio

🔍 Search 📋 Browse 🏷️ Tags ❤️ Favourites ➕ Add 🧬 Extraction
2
Articles
2
Name variants
Also published as: Marina Lizio,
articles
Claudio Babiloni, Susanna Lopez, Giuseppe Noce +34 more · 2026 · Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · Elsevier · added 2026-04-24
We evaluated the accuracy of standard machine learning (ML) algorithms in predicting 1-year cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease patients with mild cognitive impairment (ADMCI) using resting-state Show more
We evaluated the accuracy of standard machine learning (ML) algorithms in predicting 1-year cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease patients with mild cognitive impairment (ADMCI) using resting-state electroencephalographic (rsEEG) biomarkers enriched with APOE genotype, sex, age, and educational attainment data. The study analyzed datasets from 63 ADMCI patients obtained from an international archive. The ML algorithms included Simple Logistic Regression, Model Trees, Logistic Regression, K-nearest neighbor, and Support Vector Machine. Input features comprised lobar rsEEG source activities across delta (<4 Hz) to alpha (≈10-12 Hz) bands, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF Aβ1-42/p-tau), and structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) biomarkers. Cognitive decline was assessed over a 1-year follow-up ("stable" vs. "decliner") based on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. The four independent ML algorithms accurately predicted changes in the MMSE score over a 1-year follow-up, with accuracies of 77-78% in ADMCI participants aged ≥ 70 years and 74-77% in those aged < 70 years. These findings suggest that rsEEG biomarkers in ADMCI patients may not only reveal underlying pathophysiological mechanisms affecting cortical arousal and vigilance but also hold predictive value for cognitive outcomes. Show less
no PDF DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2026.2111860
APOE
Marina Lizio, Yuri Ishizu, Masayoshi Itoh +11 more · 2015 · Frontiers in genetics · Frontiers · added 2026-04-24
Mammals are composed of hundreds of different cell types with specialized functions. Each of these cellular phenotypes are controlled by different combinations of transcription factors. Using a human Show more
Mammals are composed of hundreds of different cell types with specialized functions. Each of these cellular phenotypes are controlled by different combinations of transcription factors. Using a human non islet cell insulinoma cell line (TC-YIK) which expresses insulin and the majority of known pancreatic beta cell specific genes as an example, we describe a general approach to identify key cell-type-specific transcription factors (TFs) and their direct and indirect targets. By ranking all human TFs by their level of enriched expression in TC-YIK relative to a broad collection of samples (FANTOM5), we confirmed known key regulators of pancreatic function and development. Systematic siRNA mediated perturbation of these TFs followed by qRT-PCR revealed their interconnections with NEUROD1 at the top of the regulation hierarchy and its depletion drastically reducing insulin levels. For 15 of the TF knock-downs (KD), we then used Cap Analysis of Gene Expression (CAGE) to identify thousands of their targets genome-wide (KD-CAGE). The data confirm NEUROD1 as a key positive regulator in the transcriptional regulatory network (TRN), and ISL1, and PROX1 as antagonists. As a complimentary approach we used ChIP-seq on four of these factors to identify NEUROD1, LMX1A, PAX6, and RFX6 binding sites in the human genome. Examining the overlap between genes perturbed in the KD-CAGE experiments and genes with a ChIP-seq peak within 50 kb of their promoter, we identified direct transcriptional targets of these TFs. Integration of KD-CAGE and ChIP-seq data shows that both NEUROD1 and LMX1A work as the main transcriptional activators. In the core TRN (i.e., TF-TF only), NEUROD1 directly transcriptionally activates the pancreatic TFs HSF4, INSM1, MLXIPL, MYT1, NKX6-3, ONECUT2, PAX4, PROX1, RFX6, ST18, DACH1, and SHOX2, while LMX1A directly transcriptionally activates DACH1, SHOX2, PAX6, and PDX1. Analysis of these complementary datasets suggests the need for caution in interpreting ChIP-seq datasets. (1) A large fraction of binding sites are at distal enhancer sites and cannot be directly associated to their targets, without chromatin conformation data. (2) Many peaks may be non-functional: even when there is a peak at a promoter, the expression of the gene may not be affected in the matching perturbation experiment. Show less
📄 PDF DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00331
MLXIPL