Literature DB >> 30128179

A novel long non-coding RNA, AC012456.4, as a valuable and independent prognostic biomarker of survival in oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Xuegang Hu1,2, Zailing Qiu1,2, Jianchai Zeng1,2, Tingting Xiao1,2, Zhihong Ke1,2, Hongbing Lyu1.   

Abstract

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a major malignant cancer of the head and neck. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as critical regulators during the development and progression of cancers. This study aimed to identify a lncRNA-related signature with prognostic value for evaluating survival outcomes and to explore the underlying molecular mechanisms of OSCC. Associations between overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and candidate lncRNAs were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. The robustness of the prognostic significance was shown via the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. A total of 2,493 lncRNAs were differentially expressed between OSCC and control samples (fold change >2, p < 0.05). We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to identify 21 lncRNAs for which the expression levels were associated with OS and DFS of OSCC patients (p < 0.05) and found that down-expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 especially contributed to poor DFS (p = 0.00828) and OS (p = 0.00987). Furthermore, decreased expression of AC012456.4 was identified as an independent prognostic risk factor through multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses (DFS: p = 0.004, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.600, 95% confidence interval(CI) [0.423-0.851]; OS: p = 0.002, HR = 0.672, 95% CI [0.523-0.863). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) indicated that lncRNA AC012456.4 were significantly enriched in critical biological functions and pathways and was correlated with tumorigenesis, such as regulation of cell activation, and the JAK-STAT and MAPK signal pathway. Overall, these findings were the first to evidence that AC012456.4 may be an important novel molecular target with great clinical value as a diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic biomarker for OSCC patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AC012456.4; Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs); Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC); Prognostic biomarkers

Year:  2018        PMID: 30128179      PMCID: PMC6095106          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


Introduction

The five-year survival rate is approximately 50% for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), which is one of the most common malignancies of the head and neck region (Bozec et al., 2009; Ferlay et al., 2015; Kamangar, Dores & Anderson, 2006; Kim et al., 2017; Verusingam et al., 2017). The predisposition of OSCC to distant metastases and metastases in the lymph nodes, its highly invasive nature, and its tendency towards local recurrence are important factors that contribute to the poor prognosis of OSCC patients (Massano et al., 2006; Singh & Schenberg, 2013). Hence, more effective novel tumor diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers (Mehrotra & Gupta, 2011), which can improve the survival rate and can be used to assess treatment outcomes, are urgently needed. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) (http://cancergenome.nih.gov) database, which is primarily used to collate specimens from cancer patients and adjacent normal tissue specimens, contains large data sets collected with high-throughput methods at multiple genomic and proteomic levels (Chin, Andersen & Futreal, 2011; Wang, Gerstein & Snyder, 2009). The Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) is the largest and most comprehensive public gene expression repository for high-throughput data at NCBI (Barrett & Edgar, 2006; Clough & Barrett, 2016). Both the GEO and TCGA collect macroscopic clinical information, such as stage and grade of tumor, survival time, age, sex, and race. Therefore, the TCGA and GEO databases can be analyzed systematically and comprehensively to explore important potential value and information. In this study, we first sought to use the existing GEO microarrays and TCGA RNA-seq data to identify differential expression of lncRNAs between OSCC and control tissue samples. Then, the differentially expressed lncRNAs were evaluated by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and univariate, multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). Ultimately, through systematic and objective analysis, we first discovered that lncRNA AC012456.4 is significantly associated with survival outcomes of OSCC patients based on TCGA data. Then, AC012456.4 was further successfully confirmed as a potential prognostic biomarker for the prediction of overall survival (OS) in the GEO database. We hope that the lncRNA AC012456.4 revealed in our study may serve as a novel biomarker and potential target for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of OSCC.

Materials and Methods

Data source

The RNA-seq data and corresponding patient information data of head and neck cell carcinoma (HNSC) were downloaded from the TCGA database. Clinical samples from the oral cavity (buccal mucosa, tongue, lip, hard palate, alveolar ridge, floor of the mouth and oral cavity) were chosen, while some samples from other parts (hypopharynx, larynx, oropharynx and tonsil, for example) were excluded. The original microarray data between OSCC and adjacent normal tissue samples were downloaded from the NCBI GEO databases. The accession numbers were GSE36820 and GSE41613, respectively. The microarray data of GSE36820 and GSE41613 were based on GPL570 (Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array).

Data pre-processing and differential expression analysis

The edgeR package was downloaded from the Stanford University website. The original microarray data from the GEO were converted into expression measures using the affy R package. Then, the differentially expressed lncRNAs were identified by the Limma R package (Ritchie et al., 2015; Teufel et al., 2016). The differentially expressed lncRNAs that were screened from the TCGA were analyzed by the edgeR package (Robinson, McCarthy & Smyth, 2010). To improve screen accuracy and simplify the screening process, the cut-off criteria, which was in accordance with the procedure of Benjamini & Hochberg (BH), was as follows: 1. the false discovery rate was controlled at 0.01; 2. the fold change should be more than 2. The differentially expressed lncRNAs among GSE36820, GSE41613 and the TCGA were identified by the intersect function in the R package. Tumor and normal tissue data were recorded and were statistically analyzed.

Identification of lncRNAs with prognostic value in OSCC

The differences between expressed lncRNAs (fold change >2, p < 0.05) are involved in the prognostic value for OSCC. The OSCC patients were divided into two parts, depending on the average expression level of candidate lncRNAs: a high expression group and a low expression group. Survival differences and p-values were compared between the two groups and were evaluated using a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and a log-rank test. After this, a univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (Bair & Tibshirani, 2004) was conducted to assess the correlation between candidate lncRNAs and patient overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p < 0.05). Statistically significant lncRNAs and clinical candidate predictors were further evaluated by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify independent prognostic lncRNAs. Candidate predictors included age, gender, grade, and stage. We then performed subgroup analyses. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were also assessed.

Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA)

GSEA 2-2.2.3 (JAVA version) was downloaded from the Gene Set Enrichment Analysis website (http://software.broadinstitute.org/gsea/index.jsp). Then, the downloaded dataset was imported using the GSEA software. Gene sets identified as related to biological signal conduction on the MSigDB (Molecular Signatures Database) (http://software.broadinstitute.org/gsea/msigdb), which may be found on the GSEA website, served as reference gene sets. This process was repeated 1,000 times for each analysis according to the default weighted enrichment statistical method. Gene sets with a false discovery rate (FDR) <0.25 and a family-wise error rate (FWR) <0.05. The GSEA analysis includes four key statistics: Enrichment Score (ES), Normalized Enrichment Score (NES), False Discovery Rate (FDR) and P-value.

Statistical analysis

In this study, all analyses, including the t-test, heat map, and survival analyses, were performed with the R, GraphPad and SPSS software packages. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Characteristics of OSCC patients according to the TCGA

In this study, the datasets of 350 OSCC patient and 44 controls were acquired and downloaded from the TCGA (http://cancergenome.nih.gov) database; these datasets contained expression data and clinical information related to 14,448 lncRNAs. The clinicopathological features of all patients are shown in Table 1. The mean ±  standard deviation (STDEV) for all patient ages is 61.590 ±  12.886.
Table 1

The clinicopathological characteristics of patients from the TCGA database.

CharacteristicsNumber of caseNo. of patients (%)
Age (years)346
≦60152(41.33%)
≧60194(58.67%)
Median (range)61.590(19–90)
Gender347
Male236(68.01%)
Female111(31.99%)
Alcohol history339
No111(32.74%)
Yes228(67.26%)
Perineural invasion present263
No123(46.77%)
Yes140(53.23%)
Margin status324
Close39(12.04%)
Negative244(75.31%)
Positive41(12.65%)
Lymphovascular invasion present250
Yes76(30.40%)
No174(69.60%)
Tumor stage314
Stage I21(6.69%)
Stage II56(17.83%)
Stage III64(20.38%)
Stage IV173(55.10%)
T stage335
T134(10.15%)
T2103(%)
T370(%)
T4128(%)
N stage334
NO126(37.72%)
N152(15.57%)
N2110(32.93%)
N346(13.77%)
M stage170
M0125(73.53%)
M145(26.47%)
Histologic grade344
G153(15.41%)
G2210(61.05%)
G371(20.64%)
G410(2.91%)
Vital status347
Alive227(65.42%)
Dead120(34.58%)

Significant differentially expressed lncRNAs in OSCC

In all, 2,493 differentially expressed lncRNAs were identified through analysis of 14,448 lncRNAs using the edgeR packages (fold change >2, p < 0.05) (Fig. 1). Moreover, 855 lncRNAs were down-regulated and 1,638 lncRNAs were up-regulated in the OSCC samples compared to normal tissue. Down-regulated and up-regulated lncRNAs account for 34.2% and 65.6% of the differentially expressed lncRNAs, respectively.
Figure 1

A heat map drawn to show differential lncRNA expression in OSCC and normal tissue samples from the TCGA datasets, which were analyzed with R software.

Representative genes of each cluster were selected and represented as a heat map. Genes shown in red are upregulated and genes in blue are downregulated. The magnitude of the regulation is illustrated by the intensity of the color.

A heat map drawn to show differential lncRNA expression in OSCC and normal tissue samples from the TCGA datasets, which were analyzed with R software.

Representative genes of each cluster were selected and represented as a heat map. Genes shown in red are upregulated and genes in blue are downregulated. The magnitude of the regulation is illustrated by the intensity of the color.

Identification of survival differences lncRNAs in OSCC

We used a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test to identify relationships between the above 2,493 lncRNA signatures and the survival of OSCC patients. Then, we determined the levels of 21 lncRNA signatures that were significantly related to OS and DFS. Among these 21 lncRNAs, a significant positive correlation was observed between the signatures of 13 lncRNAs (TTC39A-AS1, RP11-93B14.9, AC012456.4, RP11-87C12.5, RP11-464F9.21, LINC01549, RP11-897M7.1, AP003900.6, LINC01343, RP11-181E10.3, CTD-2545H1.2, RP11-796E2.4 and LINC01108) and OS/DFS. In contrast, the signatures of the remaining 8 lncRNAs (AC007879.2, BOK-AS1, CTB-161M19.4, CTD-2033A16.3, FAM95B1, RP11-1C8.7, RP11-285G1.14 and RP11-286E11.1) were significantly negatively correlated with OS and DFS. That is, low expression of the 13 lncRNAs described above correlated with a poor prognosis of OSCC patients, while the up-regulation of the latter 8 lncRNAs correlated with a shorter survival time (Fig. 2) (Table 2).
Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests for OS and DFS in OSCC.

(A) OS and (B) DFS rates of all patients according to AC012456.4 expression. (C) OS and (D) DFS rates of all patients according to AP003900.6 expression. (E) OS and (F) DFS rates of all patients according to BOK-AS1 expression. (G) OS and (H) DFS rates of all patients according to LINC01108 expression. (I) OS and (J) DFS rates of all patients according to RP11-1C8.7 expression. (K) OS and (L) DFS rates of all patients according to RP11-87C12.5 expression.

Table 2

Twenty-one lncRNA levels significantly correlated to OS and DFS.

LncRNAGene IDChromosomeOS (P value )DFS (P value )
AC012456.4 ENSG00000230790chr20.009870.00828
AP003900.6 ENSG00000271308chr210.008680.00397
BOK-AS1ENSG00000234235chr20.018120.01597
LINC01108ENSG00000226673chr60.006310.00767
RP11-1C8.7ENSG00000271830chr80.000350.04009
RP11-87C12.5ENSG00000255856chr120.010580.00048
TTC39A-AS1ENSG00000261664chr10.042760.00371
RP11-93B14.9ENSG00000277496chr200.012790.00352
AC007879.2 ENSG00000234902chr20.008110.03607
RP11-464F9.21ENSG00000234606chr100.014860.03221
LINC01549LINC01549chr210.000210.0165
CTB-161M19.4ENSG00000249494chr50.048070.01152
RP11-286E11.1ENSG00000245293chr40.036180.0041
RP11-897M7.1ENSG00000256209chr120.031290.02265
LINC01343ENSG00000237290chr10.011150.03191
FAM95B1ENSG00000223839chr90.047780.01648
RP11-181E10.3ENSG00000271590chr20.005970.00934
CTD-2545H1.2ENSG00000262445chr170.028920.02929
RP11-796E2.4ENSG00000245904chr120.042760.00371
CTD-2033A16.3ENSG00000262136chr160.045860.02714
RP11-285G1.14ENSG00000273363chr100.012760.00503

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests for OS and DFS in OSCC.

(A) OS and (B) DFS rates of all patients according to AC012456.4 expression. (C) OS and (D) DFS rates of all patients according to AP003900.6 expression. (E) OS and (F) DFS rates of all patients according to BOK-AS1 expression. (G) OS and (H) DFS rates of all patients according to LINC01108 expression. (I) OS and (J) DFS rates of all patients according to RP11-1C8.7 expression. (K) OS and (L) DFS rates of all patients according to RP11-87C12.5 expression. Through the above Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the variables of age, gender, grade, tumor stage, and TNM stage were identified as statistically significant factors that are related to the above 21 lncRNAs and patient prognosis. We also applied univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate the ability of 21 candidate lncRNA signatures to serve as independent prognostic variables. The univariate analysis indicated that decreased AC012456.4 expression (HR = 0.706, 95% CI [0.551–0.903], p = 0.006), age, tumor stage, and TNM stage were all significantly related to worse OS in OSCC patients (Table 3). Decreased AC012456.4 expression (HR = 0.601, 95% CI [0.423–0.853], p = 0.004) was the only variable that could predict poorer DFS for OSCC. Finally, multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that low expression of AC012456.4 was the only independent prognostic variable for both OS (HR = 0.672, 95% CI [0.523–0.863], p = 0.002) and DFS (HR = 0.600, 95% CI [0.423–0.851], p = 0.004) in OSCC patients (Table 4). In addition, age and N stage were highly significantly correlated with shorter OS or DFS.
Table 3

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis for OS in patients with OSCC.

VariablesUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
P valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CI
Age (years)0.0031.0211.007, 1.0360.0011.0261.011, 1.041
Gender0.4591.1500.794, 1.6650.4811.1450.786, 1.666
Grade0.1271.2150.946, 1.5600.0621.2760.988, 1.648
Stage
(age ≦ 60)0.0341.4251.026, 1.9780.2100.7650.503, 1.163
(age >  60)0.5231.0800.853, 1.367
N0.0151.2631.046, 1.5240.0111.2791.059, 1.546
T (age ≦ 60)0.0031.5511.160, 2.0750.2931.1010.921, 1.316
  (age > 60)0.8730.9820.783, 1.230
AC012456.4 0.0060.7060.551, 0.9030.0020.6720.523, 0.863

Notes.

Regional Lymph Nodes

Primary Tumor

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis for DFS in patients with OSCC.

VariablesUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
P valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CI
Age (years)0.0931.0170.997, 1.0360.0711.0180.999, 1.037
Gender0.6271.1320.687, 1.8670.6781.1130.672, 1.841
Grade0.8171.0430.732, 1.4850.5331.1250.777, 1.627
Stage0.6251.0640.830, 1.3630.4820.8520.545, 1.332
N0.5391.0850.7837, 1.4070.1671.2860.900, 1.836
T0.1911.1670.926, 1.4700.2951.1340.896, 1.434
AC012456.4 0.0040.6010.423, 0.8530.0040.6000.423, 0.851
Notes. Regional Lymph Nodes Primary Tumor

lncRNA AC012456.4 was low expressed in OSCC tissues and associated with clinicopathological parameters

OSCC patients were further classified into high or low expression groups based on the median value of the relative lncRNA expression. The expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 was significantly weaker in OSCC tissue samples (1.360 ± 0.05569) relative to normal tissue samples (3.062 ± 0.2304) in the TCGA (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). The correlation between lncRNA AC012456.4 expression and clinicopathologic parameters of OSCC patients was also further analyzed. As shown in Table 5, lncRNA AC012456.4 expression was significantly correlated with alcohol history consumption (p = 0.033). Additionally, decreased expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 expression was nearly significantly associated with T stage (p = 0.075). However, no significant association was found between other clinicopathological factors and lncRNA AC012456.4 expression.
Figure 3

Expression of AC012456.4 in normal tissues and OSCC tissues.

AC012456.4 expression is significantly down-regulated in OSCC samples (1.360 ± 0.05569) in comparison to adjacent non-cancerous tissues (3.062 ± 0.2304) in the TCGA dataset.

Table 5

AC012456.4 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with OSCC.

CharacteristicsNumber of case AC012456.4 expressionP value
Decreased number (%)Non-decreased number (%)
Age (years)0.082
≥6018696(51.61%)90(48.39%)
<6014360(41.96%)83(58.08%)
Gender0.745
Female10247(46.08%)55(59.92%)
Male227109(48.02%)118(51.98%)
Alcohol history0.033
Yes213109(51.17%)104(48.83%)
No10440(38.46%)64(61.54%)
M stage0,511
M011956(47.06%)63(52.94%)
M13916(41.03%)23(58.97%)
T stage0.075
T1  + T212854(42.19%)74(57.81%)
T3  + T418999(52.38%)90(47.62%)
N stage0.163
N0  + N116887(51.79%)81(48.21%)
N2  + N314865(43.92%)83(56.08%)

Notes.

No distant metastasis (no pathologic M0; use clinical M to complete stage group)

Distant metastasis

No regional lymph node metastasis

Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, 3 cm or less in greatest dimension

Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; or in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; or in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

Metastasis in a lymph node more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

Tumor 2 cm or less in greatest dimension

Tumor more than 2 cm but not more than 4 cm in greatest dimension

Tumor more than 4 cm in greatest dimension

Moderately advanced local disease

T4b Very advanced local disease

Tumor invades masticator space, pterygoid plates, or skull base and/or encases internal carotid artery.

Expression of AC012456.4 in normal tissues and OSCC tissues.

AC012456.4 expression is significantly down-regulated in OSCC samples (1.360 ± 0.05569) in comparison to adjacent non-cancerous tissues (3.062 ± 0.2304) in the TCGA dataset. Notes. No distant metastasis (no pathologic M0; use clinical M to complete stage group) Distant metastasis No regional lymph node metastasis Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, 3 cm or less in greatest dimension Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; or in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; or in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension Metastasis in a lymph node more than 6 cm in greatest dimension Tumor 2 cm or less in greatest dimension Tumor more than 2 cm but not more than 4 cm in greatest dimension Tumor more than 4 cm in greatest dimension Moderately advanced local disease T4b Very advanced local disease Tumor invades masticator space, pterygoid plates, or skull base and/or encases internal carotid artery.

Evaluation of the prognostic value of lncRNA AC012456.4 via the GEO

For the purpose of evaluating the robustness of lncRNA AC012456.4 expression in the prediction of OS of OSCC patients, we acquired other independent datasets from the GEO with accession numbers of GSE36820 and GSE41613, which contained OSCC samples, but samples with incomplete clinical information were excluded. The prognostic signatures and the Kaplan–Meier analysis were calculated and performed for each OSCC sample. In agreement with the result of the TCGA datasets, low expression levels of lncRNA AC012456.4 were associated with lower OS (Fig. 4). The lncRNA AC012456.4 was also expressed at low levels in OSCC tissues (p < 0.0001).
Figure 4

Evaluation of the prognostic value of lncRNA AC012456.4 via the GEO.

(A) Heatmap of lncRNA AC012456.4 expression in GEO. (B) lncRNA AC012456.4 expression was significantly low in OSCC. (C) OSCC patients were divided into the high expression group and the low expression group according to the median lncRNA AC012456.4 expression. (D) The low expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with OSCC (p < 0.0001).

Evaluation of the prognostic value of lncRNA AC012456.4 via the GEO.

(A) Heatmap of lncRNA AC012456.4 expression in GEO. (B) lncRNA AC012456.4 expression was significantly low in OSCC. (C) OSCC patients were divided into the high expression group and the low expression group according to the median lncRNA AC012456.4 expression. (D) The low expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with OSCC (p < 0.0001).

KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of lncRNA AC012456.4.

(A) Enrichment of genes in the KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY by GSEA. (B) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY. (C) Enrichment of genes in KEGG PATHWAYS IN CANCER by GSEA. (D) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG PATHWAYS IN CANCER. (E) Enrichment of genes in KEGG OXIDATIVE PHOSPHORYLATION by GSEA. (F) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG OXIDATIVE PHOSPHORYLATION. (G) Enrichment of genes in KEGG SPLICEOSOME by GSEA. (H) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG SPLICEOSOME. The GSEA software was used to calculate enrichment levels.

GSEA were carried out to identify upregulated or downregulated GO.

(A) Enrichment of genes in GO ADAPTIVE IMMUNE RESPONSE by GSEA. (B) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO ADAPTIVE IMMUNE RESPONSE. (C) Enrichment of genes in GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF CELL ACTIVATION by GSEA. (D) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF CELL ACTIVATION. (E) Enrichment of genes in GO RRNA METABOLIC PROCESS by GSEA. (F) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO RRNA METABOLIC PROCESS. (G) Enrichment of genes in GO RIBOSOME BIOGENESIS by GSEA. (H) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO RIBOSOME BIOGENESIS. The GSEA software was used to calculate the enrichment levels.

Relationship between lncRNA AC012456.4 and biological pathways and functions

Biological pathways and functions of lncRNA AC012456.4 were identified by GSEA. This analysis revealed that lncRNA AC012456.4 was involved in many critical pathways and correlated with tumorigenesis. A total of 150 pathways listed in the high-risk group were enriched, including KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY, KEGG JAK-STAT SIGNALING PATHWAY, KEGG CALCIUM SIGNALING PATHWAY and KEGG PATHWAYS IN CANCER. Twenty-seven pathways in the low-risk group were also identified, including the KEGG OXIDATIVE PHOSPHORYLATION, KEGG PROTEASOME and KEGG SPLICEOSOME (Fig. 5). Similarly, 3073 GO annotations in the high-risk group and 516 GO annotations in the low-risk group were enriched (Fig. 6). Relevant partial results for KEGG pathways and GO analysis are listed in Table 6 and Table 7.
Figure 5

KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of lncRNA AC012456.4.

(A) Enrichment of genes in the KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY by GSEA. (B) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set KEGG MAPK SIGNALING PATHWAY. (C) Enrichment of genes in KEGG PATHWAYS IN CANCER by GSEA. (D) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG PATHWAYS IN CANCER. (E) Enrichment of genes in KEGG OXIDATIVE PHOSPHORYLATION by GSEA. (F) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG OXIDATIVE PHOSPHORYLATION. (G) Enrichment of genes in KEGG SPLICEOSOME by GSEA. (H) Heat map of core enrichment genes from the gene set KEGG SPLICEOSOME. The GSEA software was used to calculate enrichment levels.

Figure 6

GSEA were carried out to identify upregulated or downregulated GO.

(A) Enrichment of genes in GO ADAPTIVE IMMUNE RESPONSE by GSEA. (B) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO ADAPTIVE IMMUNE RESPONSE. (C) Enrichment of genes in GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF CELL ACTIVATION by GSEA. (D) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO POSITIVE REGULATION OF CELL ACTIVATION. (E) Enrichment of genes in GO RRNA METABOLIC PROCESS by GSEA. (F) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO RRNA METABOLIC PROCESS. (G) Enrichment of genes in GO RIBOSOME BIOGENESIS by GSEA. (H) Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set GO RIBOSOME BIOGENESIS. The GSEA software was used to calculate the enrichment levels.

Table 6

KEGG Pathways enriched in high-risk and low-risk groups by using GSEA.

NAMESIZEESNESNOM p-valFDR q-valFWER p-valRank at maxLeading edge
KEGG_PRIMARY_IMMUNODEFICIENCY350.7839502.0033670.0020360.0801990.0325022tags=63%, list=9%, signal=69%
KEGG_CYTOKINE_CYTOKINE_RECEPTOR_INTERACTION2580.5033021.7516130.0162270.3516880.25813393tags=46%, list=23%, signal=60%
KEGG_JAK_STAT_SIGNALING_PATHWAY1510.4624851.5851620.0510200.3560880.49611252tags=35%, list=19%, signal=43%
KEGG_PATHWAYS_IN_CANCER3240.2967561.0153040.4423860.5705240.96812772tags=28%, list=22%, signal=36%
KEGG_MAPK_SIGNALING_PATHWAY2650.3539831.2399510.2268040.5271530.88111268tags=29%, list=19%, signal=35%
KEGG_PROTEASOME46−0.542264−1.3108280.24904910.84911204tags=54%, list=19%, signal=67%
KEGG_CYTOSOLIC_DNA_SENSING_PATHWAY55−0.342477−1.0594090.36158110.9586866tags=33%, list=12%, signal=37%
KEGG_SNARE_INTERACTIONS_IN_VESICULAR_TRANSPORT38−0.365953−0.9836740.48113210.9696863tags=32%, list=12%, signal=36%
KEGG_OXIDATIVE_PHOSPHORYLATION118−0.269338−0.7249890.68105010.99211643tags=38%, list=20%, signal=48%
KEGG_SPLICEOSOME123−0.362891−0.9366200.56647310.9785025tags=24%, list=9%, signal=26%
Table 7

GO annotation enriched in high-risk and low-risk groups by using GSEA.

NameSizeESNESNOM p-valFDR q-valFWER p-valRank at maxLeading edge
GO_B_CELL_RECEPTOR_SIGNALING_PATHWAY540.7498031.9632070.0038380.9749540.1616389tags=67%, list=11%, signal=75%
GO_ADAPTIVE_IMMUNE_RESPONSE2790.6147851.9329540.0076480.7615210.2027793tags=46%, list=13%, signal=53%
GO_NEGATIVE_REGULATION_OF_INTERLEUKIN _6_PRODUCTION330.7114521.89783400.6608630.2810264tags=67%, list=18%, signal=81%
GO_REGULATION_OF_B_CELL_ACTIVATION1210.6264201.8866160.0038830.6178970.2949579tags=55%, list=16%, signal=65%
GO_POSITIVE_REGULATION_OF_CELL_ACTIVATION3050.5406501.7254360.0314960.4646840.63111768tags=47%, list=20%, signal=58%
GO_CELLULAR_RESPONSE_TO_ZINC_ION16−0.60868−1.5505110.05631010.8834440tags=56%, list=8%, signal=61%
GO_RIBOSOMAL_LARGE_SUBUNIT_BIOGENESIS48−0.60318−1.4964040.10934310.9255330tags=42%, list=9%, signal=46%
GO_POSITIVE_REGULATION_OF_PEPTIDYL_SERINE _PHOSPHORYLATION_OF_STAT_PROTEIN21−0.52630−1.3928740.11507910.9626411tags=48%, list=11%, signal=53%
GO_RRNA_METABOLIC_PROCESS249−0.38387−1.0552440.45792510.99810606tags=36%, list=18%, signal=44%
GO_RIBOSOME_BIOGENESIS300−0.38284−1.0505480.45669210.99811706tags=38%, list=20%, signal=47%

Discussion

OSCC is a common, highly invasive type of oral cancer prone to early recurrence and metastasis (Massano et al., 2006; Singh & Schenberg, 2013). Therefore, early diagnosis and treatment of OSCC is essential (Bozec et al., 2009). While cytology- and pathology-based methods have been applied to the clinical differential diagnosis of OSCC, limitations in the detection methods and poor prognoses have limited the five-year survival rate (Omar, 2013). Hence, more reliable, accurate and sensitive prognosis biomarkers and tools for early diagnosis are urgently needed (Mehrotra & Gupta, 2011). In recent years, many studies have revealed a close association between aberrant expression of lncRNAs and tumorigenesis (Alessandro & Irene, 2014; Batista & Chang, 2013; Espinosa, 2017; Rinn & Chang, 2012; Slaby, Laga & Sedlacek, 2017), which may aid in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Fewer than 2% of genes in the human genome are transcribed, and up to 98% of these transcripts are non-coding RNAs (Jandura & Krause, 2017; Espinosa, 2013; Quinn & Chang, 2016). lncRNAs are a class of non-coding transcripts ≥ 200 nucleotides in length that are actively involved in many biological processes, such as epigenetic regulation, cell cycle regulation, chromatin modulation and regulation of multiple gene expression (Rinn & Chang, 2012; Wang et al., 2017). These non-coding transcripts also play key roles in the occurrence, development and progression of malignant tumors (Espinosa, 2017; Kopp & Mendell, 2018; Spizzo et al., 2012). An increasing number of studies have reported that lncRNAs can play essential roles as oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes involved in the development and progression of various cancers (Batista & Chang, 2013; Espinosa, 2017; Kopp & Mendell, 2018; Reik, 2009; Rinn & Chang, 2012; Slaby, Laga & Sedlacek, 2017; Spizzo et al., 2012), including OSCC (Fang et al., 2017; Gomes et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2017; (Li et al., 2017). For example, the down-regulation of HOTAIR is associated with cancer progression in 26 human tumor types (Bhan & Mandal, 2015). However, most early studies focused on a single gene or the results obtained from a single cohort study of lncRNAs and OSCC. Sun et al. (2017) used qRT-PCR to analyze the expression levels of lncRNA PDIA3P in 58 OSCC and paired noncancerous tissue samples. This study found that the overexpression of lncRNA PDIA3P correlated with lower survival rates for OSCC patients. One study by Wu et al. (2015) suggested that high expression of lncRNA HOTAIR in OSCC patients would contribute to the development and progression of cancer, leading to a poor prognosis. Similarly, LINC00668 expression is increased in both 50 OSCC tissues and cells, and over-expression is significantly correlated with poorer survival for OSCC patients; Therefore, this might be a negative predictive factor for the prognosis of OSCC patients (Zhang, 2017). In the era of big data, the development of TCGA and GEO technology has allowed researchers to predict and identify new biomarkers, which has enhanced the reliability and accuracy of current research. Cui et al. (2017) used TCGA and GEO data to determine that the expression levels of several lncRNAs, including RP1-228H13.5, TMCC1-AS1, LINC00205, and RP11-307C12.11, were associated with OS and recurrence-free survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Three lncRNAs (LINC01140, TGFB2-OT1, and RP11-347C12.10) were significantly correlated with prognoses of hepatocellular carcinoma patients, independent of some clinical characteristics. Using the database, three lncRNAs, which may play key roles in the development, progression, and recurrence in gastric cancer, were identified (Song et al., 2017). However, the functions, roles, and molecular mechanisms of lncRNAs associated with OSCC remain unclear. In this study, we identified lncRNAs that are dysregulated in OSCC and evaluated the relationships between the TCGA database and the clinicopathological features of these OSCC patients. Based on the above analysis, a total of 21 lncRNAs were correlated with patient prognoses, of which 13 lncRNAs (TTC39A-AS1, RP11-93B14.9, AC012456.4, RP11-87C12.5, RP11-464F9.21, LINC01549, RP11-897M7.1, AP003900.6, LINC01343, RP11-181E10.3, CTD-2545H1.2, RP11-796E2.4 and LINC01108) were significantly positively associated with OS and DFS, while the up-regulation of the latter eight lncRNAs (AC007879.2, BOK-AS1, CTB-161M19.4, CTD-2033A16.3, FAM95B1, RP11-1C8.7, RP11-285G1.14 and RP11-286E11.1) were correlated with poorer prognoses. Lan et al. (2017) have also reported that RP11-1C8.7 predicted the progression and outcome of patients with kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma and was regarded as an independent prognostication factor for kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma. Thus far in the published literature, no report has evaluated the biological function and molecular mechanisms of other lncRNAs associated with human cancers. To our knowledge, this study is pioneering research and identified the lncRNA AC012456.4, which exhibited significantly lower expression in OSCC tissues than in adjacent normal tissues. Additionally, a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (Gyorffy, Lánczky & Szállási, 2012) as well as univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed that lncRNA AC012456.4 was an independent prognostic factor and was significantly correlated with shorter OS and DFS. Further validation via the GEO database was consistent with the TCGA database analysis results. Moreover, we further evaluated the relationship between AC012456.4 expression and the clinicopathological features of OSCC patients. Low levels of AC012456.4 were found to be significantly associated with the history of alcohol consumption in OSCC patients. Interestingly, according to previous studies, we found that alcohol consumption can increase the probability of G:C to A:T transitions and that alcohol drinkers exhibited a significantly higher incidence of p53 mutations in OSCC (Hsieh et al., 2001), which suggested that alcohol may play a critical role in the progression of OSCC. Since lncRNAs perform their biological function by specifically binding to target genes, we further explored the possible biological functions and molecular pathways of AC012456.4. Through GSEA, AC012456.4 was found to be significantly involved with tumor-related signaling pathways and crucial biological functions in tumorigenesis. Key pathways and functions for tumor initiation and progression were identified, such as GO biological function annotation and KEGG pathways, including the adaptive immune response, RRNA metabolic processes, CALCIUM, MAPK, and the JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Additionally, mutation, aberrant expression and modification of these GO annotations and signaling pathways have been frequently reported in OSCC and other cancers. We found that the MAPK pathway could be activated by the low expression of the tumor suppressor QKI-5, which can promote the proliferation of OSCC cells (Fu & Feng, 2015). We also revealed the strong relationships between HOXC10 and gastric cancer cell proliferation and metastasis, which occur through the MAPK pathway (Guo et al., 2017). Other pathways and biological functions have also been reported in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (Huang et al., 2017a), hepatocellular carcinoma (Huang et al., 2017b; Wonganan et al., 2017), and human papillomavirus-transformed tumors (Skeate et al., 2018). Dysregulated expression of lncRNA signatures has tremendous potential value, but this research has limitations. Above all, we have explored the correlation between AC012456.4 expression and OSCC prognosis based on the TCGA and GEO databases, which signifies that the exploration was performed using a bioinformatics approach. Then, further research, such as quantitative real-time PCR, as well as in vivo and in vitro experiments, will require collaborative efforts to explore the potential molecular functions and related mechanisms of these lncRNAs in OSCC.

Conclusions

In summary, this study was the first to discover that lncRNA AC012456.4 was poorly expressed in OSCC, with decreased survival rates for OSCC patients. This may be a potential novel, independent biomarker and therapeutic target for the early diagnosis, pathological classification, clinical treatment and outcome prediction for OSCC. Nevertheless, these assumptions require validation and confirmation by larger, multicenter studies.

All patients characteristics in OSCC from the TCGA database

The clinicopathological features of all OSCC patients from the TCGA database. Click here for additional data file.

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis in patients with OSCC

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were applied to evaluate the 21 candidate lncRNA signatures as independent prognostic variables. Click here for additional data file.

Expression of AC012456.4 in normal tissues and OSCC tissues

AC012456.4 expression is significantly down-regulated in OSCC and normal tissue samples in the TCGA dataset. Click here for additional data file.

AC012456.4 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with OSCC from the TCGA database

The relationship between the expression of lncRNA AC012456.4 OSCC tissues with clinicopathological parameters. Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests for DFS in OSCC

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test was used to identify relationships between the above 2493 lncRNA signatures and OSCC patient survival. Then, we determined the levels of 126 lncRNA signatures that were significantly related to DFS. Click here for additional data file.

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests for OS in OSCC

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with the log-rank was used to identify relationships between the above 2493 lncRNA signatures and OSCC patient survival. Then, we determined the levels of 151 lncRNA signatures that were significantly related to OS. Click here for additional data file.

21 lncRNA signatures that were significantly related to OS and DFS

Kaplan–Meierlan-Meier survival analysis with the log-rank was used to identify relationships between the above 2493 lncRNA signatures and OSCC patient survival. Then, we determined the levels of 21 lncRNA signatures that were significantly related to OS and DFS. Click here for additional data file.

KEGG Pathway enrichment analysis by GSEA

Biological pathways and functions of lncRNA AC012456.4 were identified by GSEA. This analysis revealed that lncRNA AC012456.4 was involved in many critical pathways and correlated with tumorigenesis. Click here for additional data file.
  46 in total

Review 1.  Unique features of long non-coding RNA biogenesis and function.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Quinn; Howard Y Chang
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 2.  The emerging role of long noncoding RNAs in oral cancer.

Authors:  Carolina Cavalieri Gomes; Silvia Ferreira de Sousa; George Adrian Calin; Ricardo Santiago Gomez
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2016-10-13

Review 3.  The New RNA World: Growing Evidence for Long Noncoding RNA Functionality.

Authors:  Allison Jandura; Henry M Krause
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 11.639

4.  Delayed diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma following dental treatment.

Authors:  T Singh; M Schenberg
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  6-Hydroxy-3-O-methyl-kaempferol 6-O-glucopyranoside potentiates the anti-proliferative effect of interferon α/β by promoting activation of the JAK/STAT signaling by inhibiting SOCS3 in hepatocellular carcinoma cells.

Authors:  Orawan Wonganan; Yu-Jiao He; Xiao-Fei Shen; Kanjana Wongkrajang; Apichart Suksamrarn; Guo-Lin Zhang; Fei Wang
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 4.219

6.  Long intergenic non-coding RNA 668 regulates VEGFA signaling through inhibition of miR-297 in oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Chen-Zheng Zhang
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2017-05-28       Impact factor: 3.575

Review 7.  Long noncoding RNAs: cellular address codes in development and disease.

Authors:  Pedro J Batista; Howard Y Chang
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 8.  RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics.

Authors:  Zhong Wang; Mark Gerstein; Michael Snyder
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data.

Authors:  Mark D Robinson; Davis J McCarthy; Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Clinical evidence of differential expression of lncRNAs in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A scoping review.

Authors:  Monica Pentenero; Leah M Bowers; Ruwan Jayasinghe; Tami Yap; Sok Ching Cheong; Alexander Ross Kerr; Camile S Farah; Ilias Alevizos
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.511

Review 2.  Long non-coding RNAs in Oral squamous cell carcinoma: biologic function, mechanisms and clinical implications.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Xiang Meng; Xin-Wei Zhu; Deng-Cheng Yang; Ran Chen; Yong Jiang; Tao Xu
Journal:  Mol Cancer       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 27.401

3.  Hsa_circ_0086414 Might Be a Diagnostic Biomarker of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Lin Li; Zhong-Ti Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-01-14

4.  Prognostic Role of Long Noncoding RNAs in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Peng Wang; Xin Liu; Ziran Gao; Xianbao Cao; Xilong Zhao
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2021-12-26       Impact factor: 3.434

Review 5.  Using ncRNAs as Tools in Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment-The Way towards Personalized Medicine to Improve Patients' Health.

Authors:  Roberto Piergentili; Giuseppe Basile; Cristina Nocella; Roberto Carnevale; Enrico Marinelli; Renato Patrone; Simona Zaami
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 6.208

6.  Silencing circular RNA UVRAG inhibits bladder cancer growth and metastasis by targeting the microRNA-223/fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 axis.

Authors:  Chen Yang; Siqi Wu; Xiaobo Wu; Xuejian Zhou; Shengming Jin; Haowen Jiang
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 6.716

7.  Identification and validation of key modules and hub genes associated with the pathological stage of oral squamous cell carcinoma by weighted gene co-expression network analysis.

Authors:  Xuegang Hu; Guanwen Sun; Zhiqiang Shi; Hui Ni; Shan Jiang
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 2.984

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.