« Home « Kết quả tìm kiếm

A lipid metabolism-related genes prognosis biomarker associated with the tumor immune microenvironment in colorectal carcinoma


Tóm tắt Xem thử

- Patients in the low-risk group were more likely to have higher tumor mutational burden, stem cell characteristics, and higher PD-L1 expression levels.
- Although most studies of alterations in cancer me- tabolism have focused on glucose metabolism (i.e., the Warburg effect), the role of abnormal lipid metabolism in cancer cells has been gradually recognized over the past few years [14, 15].
- the search used the key- words “colon cancer”, “rectum cancer”, “adenocarcin- oma”, “Homo sapiens”, and “Expression profiling.” The gene expression microarray dataset GSE39582 was se- lected and downloaded because it had the largest sample size for CRC [29].
- A total of 1044 genes were found to be involved in the lipid metabolism process after removal of overlapping genes..
- The risk score of each sample was calculated by the following formula: (expGene: the expression level of LMRG in the TCGA or GEO cohort.
- Coef: the coefficient of LMRG in the LASSO Cox regression model in the training set)..
- Finally, 57 LMRG were shown to be related to prognosis in the training set.
- The AUCs of the signature were 0.6901 at 1 year, 0.6776 at 3 years, and 0.5945 at 5 years in the training set (Fig.
- 2 Identification of the differentially expressed and prognosis-related genes in the TCGA cohort.
- K-M survival curves showed that high-risk pa- tients had significantly shorter OS than low-risk cases in the training set (Fig.
- 3E, more patients died in the high-risk group, whereas the majority survived in the low-risk group.
- In the training set, principal components analysis (PCA) was used to obtain expression patterns in the low- and high-risk groups.
- In the validation set, the high-risk patients again had significantly shorter OS than those in the low-risk group (Fig.
- Independent prognostic value of the risk signature The results showed that the risk score based on the four-LMRG signature was an independent prognostic factor in the training set, with hazard ratio (HR.
- Similar results were obtained in the validation set, showing the independence of the risk signature with HR CI .
- There were also more stem cell characteristics in the low-risk group, including significantly higher.
- The OS of high-risk patients was significantly shorter than that of low-risk patients in the different clinicopatho- logical characteristic subgroups..
- 0.05, 487 samples of the total set were included in the subsequent ana- lysis.
- As shown in the cor- relation heatmap, the results revealed that the risk score was negatively correlated with most of the im- mune cells (Supplementary Fig.
- In this study, the risk score was negatively correlated with PD-L1 mRNA in the training set (R.
- 3 Development and validation of the risk signature.
- (C) Time-dependent ROC curves for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS in the training group.
- (H) The survival curves showed significant differences between high- and low-risk patients in the validation set ( P <.
- (I) Time-dependent ROC curves for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS in the validation set.
- (J) Risk score distribution (above) and survival status (below) of CRC patients in the validation set.
- 4 Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the risk score was an independent prognostic factor both in the training and validation sets.
- (A) Results of univariate Cox regression analysis in the training set.
- (B) Results of multivariate Cox regression analysis in the training set..
- (C) Results of univariate Cox regression analysis in the validation set.
- (D) Results of multivariate Cox regression analysis in the validation set.
- The top 20 genes with the highest mutation frequency in CRC are shown in the waterfall plots in Fig.
- The results of the analysis showed that the TMB score was higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P = 0.0002, Fig.
- 5 Stratified analysis of the risk signature.
- This could be one of the reasons for the better prognosis of patients in the low-risk group..
- Functional enrichment in the low- risk group was focused on energy-metabolism-related functions, including fatty acid metabolism and oxidative phosphorylation (Fig.
- Each variable in the nomogram was assigned a weighted score based on the multivariate Cox regression coefficient.
- (B) Prognostic value of the nomogram for predicting 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate in the training set.
- (C) Prognostic value of the nomogram for predicting 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates in the validation set.
- (D-F) Calibration plots suggest that the nomogram ’ s predictions of 1-year (D), 3-year survival (E), and 5-year survival (F) match well with the actual observed probabilities in the training set.
- The more the blue lines and dashed lines in the graph coincide, the better the predictive performance of the.
- (G-I) The calibration plots showed that the actual observed probabilities were in agreement with the predictive values from the nomogram for 1-year (G), 3-year (H), and 5-year survival (I) in the validation set.
- Therefore, the lipid-related metabolism risk signature represents alter- ations in the TIME of CRC.
- Gene names and mutation frequency are shown in the bar chart on the left.
- org/10.1186/s .
- Immune landscape of the risk signature..
- Mutation landscape of the risk signature..
- 9 Enriched gene sets in the Hallmark collection for high- and low-risk patients.
- The lines above the X axis indicate gene sets enriched in the high-risk group, and the lines under the X axis indicate the gene sets enriched in the low-risk group.
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s .
- https://doi..
- https://doi.org/10.1016/S .
- https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.0048..
- https://doi.org .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg .
- https://doi.org/10.1245/s .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet .
- https://doi.org CCR-19-1543..
- https://doi.org CAN-19-1027..
- https://doi.org/1 0.1016/j.cell .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semca ncer .
- https://doi.org/1 0.1186/s .
- https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms16010924..
- https://doi.org CAN-16-0651..
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc .
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30709..
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel .
- https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI127201..
- https://doi.org/10.1210/jc .
- https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.14647..
- https://doi.org/10.1038/.
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001453..
- doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg405..
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas .
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts034..
- doi.org/10.1089/omi.2011.0118..
- https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa970..
- Penalized cox regression analysis in the high-dimensional and low-sample size settings, with applications to microarray gene expression data.
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinforma tics/bti422..
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s .
- https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.1837..
- https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.cell .
- https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3337..
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw325..
- https://doi.org/10.1101/gr .
- doi.org CIR-18-0927..
- https://doi.org CCR-19-1105..
- https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22591..
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s x..
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s x..
- https://doi.org/10.1 053/j.gastro .
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep .
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s y..
- org/10.1016/j.bbcan .
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10250..
- org/10.1016/j.immuni .
- https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201910698..
- https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.canlet

Xem thử không khả dụng, vui lòng xem tại trang nguồn
hoặc xem Tóm tắt