TABLE 2.
Comparison of features and role in tumor of miRNA, lncRNA and circRNA.
| Features | Role in tumor | Refs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| miRNA | a. NcRNAs of approximately 22 nt in length | a. Translation inhibition | Krol et al. (2010); Ryan et al. (2010); Pallante et al. (2014); Slack and Chinnaiyan (2019) |
| b. Not easy to degrade, with high stability | b. Degradation of mRNA | — | |
| c. Highly conservative | c. Transcriptional regulation | — | |
| d. Timing expression specificity | — | — | |
| e. Tissue expression specificity | — | — | |
| f. The regulation is not very strong | — | — | |
| lncRNA | a. NcRNAs greater than 200 nt in length | a. Regulation of transcription levels | Hart and Goff (2016); Slack and Chinnaiyan (2019); Alessio et al. (2020) |
| b. No or weak protein coding ability | b. Regulation of the level of epigenetic modification | — | |
| c. Low conservatism | c. Regulation of post-transcriptional levels | — | |
| d. Timing expression specificity | — | — | |
| e. Tissue expression specificity | — | — | |
| circRNA | a. High stability | a. Regulation of transcription, splicing, and chromatin interactions | Li et al. (2015); Qu et al. (2015); Slack and Chinnaiyan (2019) |
| b. Highly conservative | b. A miRNA sponge | — | |
| c. Timing expression specificity | c. Acting as a protein scaffold | — | |
| d. Tissue expression specificity | d. Competitive binding proteins | — |