Ae Kyung Park1,2, Pora Kim2, Leomar Y Ballester3, Yoshua Esquenazi4, Zhongming Zhao2,5. 1. College of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Life and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Republic of Korea. 2. Center for Precision Health, School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Human Genetics Center, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
Background: A high heterogeneity and activation of multiple oncogenic pathways have been implicated in failure of targeted therapies in glioblastoma (GBM). Methods: Using The Cancer Genome Atlas data, we identified subtype-specific prognostic core genes by a combined approach of genome-wide Cox regression and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis. The results were validated with 8 combined public datasets containing 608 GBMs. We further examined prognostic chromosome aberrations and mutations. Results: In classical and mesenchymal subtypes, 2 receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) (MET and IGF1R), and the genes in RTK downstream pathways such as phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kB), were commonly detected as prognostic core genes. Classical subtype-specific prognostic core genes included those in cell cycle, DNA repair, and the Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway. Immune-related genes were enriched in the prognostic genes showing negative promoter cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) methylation/expression correlations. Mesenchymal subtype-specific prognostic genes were those related to mesenchymal cell movement, PI3K/Akt, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), Wnt/β-catenin, and Wnt/Ca2+ pathways. In copy number alterations and mutations, 6p loss and TP53 mutation were associated with poor and good survival, respectively, in the classical subtype. In the mesenchymal subtype, patients with PIK3R1 or PCLO mutations showed poor prognosis. In the glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) subtype, patients harboring 10q loss, 12p gain, or 14q loss exhibited poor survival. Furthermore, 10q loss was significantly associated with the recently recognized G-CIMP subclass showing relatively low CpG methylation and poor prognosis. Conclusion: These subtype-specific alterations have promising potentials as new prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets combined with surrogate markers of GBM subtypes. However, considering the small number of events, the results of copy number alterations and mutations require further validations.
Background: A high heterogeneity and activation of multiple oncogenic pathways have been implicated in failure of targeted therapies in glioblastoma (GBM). Methods: Using The Cancer Genome Atlas data, we identified subtype-specific prognostic core genes by a combined approach of genome-wide Cox regression and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis. The results were validated with 8 combined public datasets containing 608 GBMs. We further examined prognostic chromosome aberrations and mutations. Results: In classical and mesenchymal subtypes, 2 receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) (MET and IGF1R), and the genes in RTK downstream pathways such as phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kB), were commonly detected as prognostic core genes. Classical subtype-specific prognostic core genes included those in cell cycle, DNA repair, and the Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway. Immune-related genes were enriched in the prognostic genes showing negative promoter cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) methylation/expression correlations. Mesenchymal subtype-specific prognostic genes were those related to mesenchymal cell movement, PI3K/Akt, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), Wnt/β-catenin, and Wnt/Ca2+ pathways. In copy number alterations and mutations, 6p loss and TP53 mutation were associated with poor and good survival, respectively, in the classical subtype. In the mesenchymal subtype, patients with PIK3R1 or PCLO mutations showed poor prognosis. In the glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) subtype, patients harboring 10q loss, 12p gain, or 14q loss exhibited poor survival. Furthermore, 10q loss was significantly associated with the recently recognized G-CIMP subclass showing relatively low CpG methylation and poor prognosis. Conclusion: These subtype-specific alterations have promising potentials as new prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets combined with surrogate markers of GBM subtypes. However, considering the small number of events, the results of copy number alterations and mutations require further validations.
Authors: Qianghu Wang; Baoli Hu; Xin Hu; Hoon Kim; Massimo Squatrito; Lisa Scarpace; Ana C deCarvalho; Sali Lyu; Pengping Li; Yan Li; Floris Barthel; Hee Jin Cho; Yu-Hsi Lin; Nikunj Satani; Emmanuel Martinez-Ledesma; Siyuan Zheng; Edward Chang; Charles-Etienne Gabriel Sauvé; Adriana Olar; Zheng D Lan; Gaetano Finocchiaro; Joanna J Phillips; Mitchel S Berger; Konrad R Gabrusiewicz; Guocan Wang; Eskil Eskilsson; Jian Hu; Tom Mikkelsen; Ronald A DePinho; Florian Muller; Amy B Heimberger; Erik P Sulman; Do-Hyun Nam; Roel G W Verhaak Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Heidi S Phillips; Samir Kharbanda; Ruihuan Chen; William F Forrest; Robert H Soriano; Thomas D Wu; Anjan Misra; Janice M Nigro; Howard Colman; Liliana Soroceanu; P Mickey Williams; Zora Modrusan; Burt G Feuerstein; Ken Aldape Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Lonneke A M Gravendeel; Mathilde C M Kouwenhoven; Olivier Gevaert; Johan J de Rooi; Andrew P Stubbs; J Elza Duijm; Anneleen Daemen; Fonnet E Bleeker; Linda B C Bralten; Nanne K Kloosterhof; Bart De Moor; Paul H C Eilers; Peter J van der Spek; Johan M Kros; Peter A E Sillevis Smitt; Martin J van den Bent; Pim J French Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Sachin Gopalkrishna Pai; Benedito A Carneiro; Jose Mauricio Mota; Ricardo Costa; Caio Abner Leite; Romualdo Barroso-Sousa; Jason Benjamin Kaplan; Young Kwang Chae; Francis Joseph Giles Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Rose K Lai; Yanwen Chen; Xiaowei Guan; Darryl Nousome; Charu Sharma; Peter Canoll; Jeffrey Bruce; Andrew E Sloan; Etty Cortes; Jean-Paul Vonsattel; Tao Su; Lissette Delgado-Cruzata; Irina Gurvich; Regina M Santella; Quinn Ostrom; Annette Lee; Peter Gregersen; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stephen J Bagley; Shawn Kothari; Rifaquat Rahman; Eudocia Q Lee; Gavin P Dunn; Evanthia Galanis; Susan M Chang; Louis Burt Nabors; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Roger Stupp; Minesh P Mehta; David A Reardon; Stuart A Grossman; Erik P Sulman; John H Sampson; Simon Khagi; Michael Weller; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mustafa Khasraw Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 13.801