| Literature DB >> 29123978 |
Ping Shao1, Deguang Sun1, Liming Wang1, Rong Fan2, Zhenming Gao1.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is graded histologically as poorly differentiated has a high recurrence, metastasis and poor prognosis. We sought to determine the regulatory mechanisms of HCC tumorigenesis and to identify molecules closely related to poorly differentiated HCC. High-throughput sequencing was used to construct microRNA (miRNA) and mRNA expression profiles for poorly differentiated HCC tissues and adjacent tissues. Network analysis was carried out to study miRNA-target interactions. Integrating the miRNA and mRNA data of HCC with four tumor grades from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) portal enabled the identification of potential closely related molecules for early diagnosis of poorly differentiated HCC. Electronic validation of RNA-seq data and survival analysis was also performed. In total, 1051 differentially expressed genes and 165 differentially expressed miRNAs were identified between HCC tumor and paired non-tumorous tissue. Based on 3718 miRNA-target interactions, we established an miRNA-target interaction network; the target genes were mainly involved in bile acid biosynthesis and bile secretion. Integrating expression data of HCC from TCGA indicated that two proteins, TM4SF1 and ANXA2, are convincing indicators for initial diagnosis of poorly differentiated HCC. According to the survival analysis, three proteins, ANXA2, C8orf33 and IGF2BP3, were identified as being associated with the survival time of HCC patients. Moreover, we suggest that hsa-miR-1180 may be an effective biomarker for poorly differentiated HCC. Three molecules, TM4SF1, ANXA2 and C8orf33, are potential biomarkers for distinguishing poorly differentiated from well-differentiated HCC.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; poorly differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma; tumor grades
Year: 2017 PMID: 29123978 PMCID: PMC5666400 DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.12310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FEBS Open Bio ISSN: 2211-5463 Impact factor: 2.693
Clinical information of three HCC patients used for RNA‐seq. G3, Grade 3; T, tumor; C, control
| No. | Sex | Age (years) | TNM stage | HBV infection | Liver cirrhosis | Hepatic fibrosis | Tumor dimensions (cm) | Histological differentiation | Clean reads (mRNA) | Clean reads (miRNA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 51 | T4N0M0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 × 6 × 7 | Poor (G3) |
53 687 294 (T) |
6 441 04 (T) |
| 2 | Male | 48 | T2N0M0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 1.8 × 1.2 × 0.8 | Poor (G3) |
35 030 210 (T) |
10 870 504 (T) |
| 3 | Male | 41 | T1N0M0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 × 2.5 × 2.3 | Poor (G3) |
33 114 380 (T) |
9 306 568 (T) |
Patient IDs in TCGA. G, grade
| Grade | Sample IDs |
|---|---|
| G1, well differentiated | TCGA‐DD‐AAE4, TCGA‐DD‐AAVP, TCGA‐G3‐AAV4, TCGA‐XR‐A8TF, TCGA‐ZP‐A9CZ |
| G2, moderately differentiated | TCGA‐CC‐A9FU, TCGA‐DD‐A1EA, TCGA‐DD‐A1EI, TCGA‐DD‐AAC9, TCGA‐DD‐AACC, TCGA‐DD‐AACK, TCGA‐DD‐AACT, TCGA‐DD‐AAD0, TCGA‐DD‐AAD2, TCGA‐DD‐AADY, TCGA‐DD‐AAEI, TCGA‐DD‐AAVQ, TCGA‐DD‐AAVR, TCGA‐DD‐AAVS, TCGA‐DD‐AAVU, TCGA‐DD‐AAVW, TCGA‐DD‐AAVX, TCGA‐DD‐AAVZ, TCGA‐DD‐AAW0, TCGA‐G3‐A25Z, TCGA‐G3‐A3CH, TCGA‐G3‐A3CK, TCGA‐G3‐AAV0, TCGA‐G3‐AAV7, TCGA‐QA‐A7B7, TCGA‐RC‐A7SB, TCGA‐UB‐A7ME |
| G3, poorly differentiated | TCGA‐BC‐A10W, TCGA‐BW‐A5NP, TCGA‐DD‐A116, TCGA‐DD‐A119, TCGA‐DD‐A1EH, TCGA‐DD‐A1EL, TCGA‐DD‐AAC8, TCGA‐DD‐AACA, TCGA‐DD‐AACB, TCGA‐DD‐AACE, TCGA‐DD‐AACH, TCGA‐DD‐AACN, TCGA‐DD‐AACO, TCGA‐DD‐AACQ, TCGA‐DD‐AACS, TCGA‐DD‐AACU, TCGA‐DD‐AACY, TCGA‐DD‐AAD6, TCGA‐DD‐AADA, TCGA‐DD‐AADC, TCGA‐DD‐AADI, TCGA‐DD‐AADK, TCGA‐DD‐AADP, TCGA‐DD‐AADW, TCGA‐DD‐AAE1, TCGA‐DD‐AAE2, TCGA‐DD‐AAEK, TCGA‐DD‐AAVV, TCGA‐G3‐A25U, TCGA‐G3‐A25X, TCGA‐G3‐A25Y, TCGA‐G3‐AAV1, TCGA‐RC‐A7S9, TCGA‐RC‐A7SH |
| G4, undifferentiated | TCGA‐DD‐AACD, TCGA‐DD‐AACG, TCGA‐DD‐AADB, TCGA‐DD‐AADD, TCGA‐DD‐AADF, TCGA‐DD‐AAE0, TCGA‐DD‐AAEE |
Figure 1Clustering map of the top 100 DEGs in RNA‐seq. The diagram presents the result of a two‐way hierarchical clustering of 100 DEGs and samples. The clustering was constructed using the complete‐linkage method together with Euclidean distance. Each row represents a DEG and each column a sample. The DEG clustering tree is shown on the right. The color scale illustrates the relative level of DEG expression: red, below the reference channel; green, higher than the reference.
Figure 2The miRNA–target interaction network for HCC. The red and green colors represent relatively high and low expression, respectively.
GO and KEGG pathway enrichment of miRNA targets in poorly differentiated HCC. FDR, false discovery rate
| GO ID | Item | No. | FDR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GO enrichment | GO:0006631 | Fatty acid metabolic process | 20 | 8.71 × 10−13 |
| GO:0008206 | Bile acid metabolic process | 14 | 1.68 × 10−11 | |
| GO:0006629 | Lipid metabolic process | 31 | 2.46 × 10−11 | |
| GO:0006699 | Bile acid biosynthetic process | 11 | 1.08 × 10−10 | |
| GO:0007586 | Digestion | 12 | 9.67 × 10−7 | |
| GO:0015721 | Bile acid and bile salt transport | 7 | 2.38 × 10−6 | |
| GO:0001889 | Liver development | 11 | 1.13 × 10−4 | |
| GO:0030573 | Bile acid catabolic process | 3 | 5.07 × 10−4 | |
| Pathway enrichment | hsa04110 | Cell cycle | 28 | 1.11 × 10−16 |
| hsa03320 | PPAR signaling pathway | 19 | 3.83 × 10−13 | |
| hsa00071 | Fatty acid metabolism | 15 | 1.45 × 10−12 | |
| hsa00120 | Primary bile acid biosynthesis | 9 | 7.61 × 10−10 | |
| hsa04976 | Bile secretion | 14 | 3.56 × 10−8 | |
| hsa04920 | Adipocytokine signaling pathway | 9 | 2.59 × 10−4 | |
| hsa04115 | p53 signaling pathway | 9 | 2.59 × 10−4 | |
| hsa05200 | Pathways in cancer | 21 | 4.8 × 10−4 | |
| hsa04975 | Fat digestion and absorption | 6 | 2.537 × 10−3 | |
| hsa04010 | MAPK signaling pathway | 14 | 2.0704 × 10−2 |
Figure 3Hierarchical clustering heat map of the top 50 genes associated with tumor grade of HCC. G, grade. The hierarchical clustering analysis indicated that the DEGs in the G3 group can be significantly distinguished from the G1 group.
Figure 4Venn diagrams of DEGs in HCC. G, grade. G3 vs G1: DEGs between G3 and G1; G3 vs G2: DEGs between G3 and G2. G3 vs G4: DEGs between G3 and G4. RNA‐seq vs TCGA: overlap of DEGs from RNA‐seq and tumor grade‐related genes from TCGA.
Figure 5Validated gene expression box plots in the TCGA dataset.
Figure 6Validated miRNA expression box plots in the TCGA dataset.
Figure 7Survival analysis of (A), C8orf33 (B), (C) and (D) in HCC.