| Literature DB >> 30877265 |
Jingcheng Zhou1,2,3, Jiangyi Wang4,5, Baoan Hong1,2,3, Kaifang Ma1,2,3, Haibiao Xie1,2,3, Lei Li1,2,3, Kenan Zhang1,2,3, Bowen Zhou1,2,3, Lin Cai1,2,3, Kan Gong1,2,3.
Abstract
m6A is the most common form of mRNA modification. However, little is known about its role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study aims to identify gene signatures and prognostic values of m6A regulators in ccRCC. In this study, a total of 528 ccRCC patients from TCGA database with sequencing and CNV data were included. Survival analysis was performed using log-rank tests and Cox regression model. The association between alteration of m6A regulators and clinicopathological characteristics was examined using chi-square test. The results showed that alteration of m6A regulators was associated with pathologic stage. Patients with any CNVs of the regulatory genes had worse OS and DFS than those with diploid genes. Moreover, deletion of m6A "writer" genes was an independent risk factor for OS, and copy number gain of "eraser" genes could magnify the effect in a synergistic way. Additionally, low expression of the writer gene METTL3 was related to activations of adipogenesis and mTOR pathways. Thus, we for the first time determined genetic alterations of m6A regulators in ccRCC and found a significant relationship between the alterations and worse clinical characteristics. The findings provide us clues to understand epigenetic modification of RNA in ccRCC.Entities:
Keywords: N6-Methyladenosine; m6A; prognosis; renal cell carcinoma
Year: 2019 PMID: 30877265 PMCID: PMC6461179 DOI: 10.18632/aging.101856
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Mutations of m6A regulatory genes in 451 ccRCC patients.
| TCGA-B0-5698 | S598T | |||||||||
| TCGA-CJ-6033 | D130N | |||||||||
| TCGA-A3-3346 | V519Cfs*2 | |||||||||
| TCGA-A3-3374 | D80*,S151R | |||||||||
| TCGA-A3-3382 | V871I | |||||||||
| TCGA-AS-3778 | X499_splice | |||||||||
| TCGA-A3-3362 | E775V | |||||||||
| TCGA-CJ-4636 | X506_splice, | |||||||||
| TCGA-B0-5098 | T91A | |||||||||
| TCGA-B0-5099 | Y31C | |||||||||
| TCGA-BP-4801 | M163I | |||||||||
| TCGA-BP-5199 | S256R | |||||||||
| TCGA-CJ-4905 | E483* | |||||||||
| TCGA-CZ-4853 | S351C | |||||||||
| TCGA-CZ-5459 | D499H | |||||||||
| TCGA-B0-5695 | F425S | |||||||||
| TCGA-CJ-5678 | L804* | |||||||||
| TCGA-CJ-5682 | N97H | |||||||||
| TCGA-CW-5581 | D987Y | |||||||||
Figure 1CNVs of m6A regulatory genes in ccRCC. (A) Percentage of ccRCC samples with CNVs of the m6A regulators based on the data from TCGA. (B) Events of copy number gain or loss of m6A regulatory genes in ccRCC samples. (C) The most common patterns of CNVs in m6A regulatory genes in ccRCC samples.
Different CNV patterns occur in ccRCC samples (n=528).
| Eraser | 457 | 0 | 45 | 26 | 0 | 71 | 13.45% | |
| 408 | 0 | 22 | 98 | 0 | 120 | 22.73% | ||
| Writer | 439 | 3 | 74 | 11 | 1 | 89 | 16.86% | |
| 303 | 0 | 207 | 18 | 0 | 225 | 42.61% | ||
| 369 | 1 | 150 | 8 | 0 | 159 | 30.11% | ||
| Reader | 408 | 0 | 0 | 119 | 1 | 120 | 22.73% | |
| 424 | 0 | 95 | 9 | 0 | 104 | 19.70% | ||
| 448 | 0 | 65 | 14 | 1 | 80 | 15.15% | ||
| 237 | 1 | 7 | 230 | 53 | 291 | 55.11% | ||
| 391 | 1 | 72 | 61 | 3 | 137 | 25.95% | ||
| 451 | 2 | 50 | 25 | 0 | 77 | 14.58% | ||
| 58 | 58 | 405 | 7 | 0 | 470 | 89.02% |
Clinical pathological parameters of ccRCC patients with or without mutation/CNV of m6A regulatory genes.
| <=60 | 32 | 218 | 0.325 | |
| >60 | 25 | 225 | ||
| Female | 26 | 148 | 0.069 | |
| Male | 31 | 295 | ||
| I | 36 | 206 | 0.123 | |
| II | 7 | 48 | ||
| III | 8 | 113 | ||
| IV | 6 | 73 | ||
| Discrepancy | 0 | 3 | ||
| G1 | 5 | 6 | ||
| G2 | 33 | 175 | ||
| G3 | 14 | 182 | ||
| G4 | 4 | 74 | ||
| x | 1 | 4 | ||
| N/A | 0 | 2 | ||
| T1 | 36 | 212 | 0.104 | |
| T2 | 8 | 57 | ||
| T3 | 12 | 164 | ||
| T4 | 1 | 10 | ||
| N0 | 25 | 201 | 0.683 | |
| N1 | 1 | 17 | ||
| Nx | 31 | 225 | ||
| M0 | 51 | 353 | 0.133 | |
| M1 | 6 | 71 | ||
| Mx | 0 | 19 |
*With mutation or CNV: Cases have mutant or CNV or mutant+CNV, confirmed through TCGA database. Without mutant and CNV: Cases with neither mutant nor CNV, confirmed through TCGA database. Ambiguous variables (Nx, Mx, N/A, discrepancy and Gx) were excluded from chi-square test or non-parametric test
Relationship between molecular characteristics and m6A regulatory genes alteration in ccRCC patients.
| wt | 8 | 25 | 4.362 | ||
| n=495 | alteration | 49 | 413 | ||
| wt | 56 | 316 | 12.041 | ||
| n=456 | alteration | 1 | 83 |
Figure 2Correlation between different CNV patterns and mRNA expression levels of ten m6A regulatory genes respectively.
Figure 3Overall survival of ccRCC patients with CNVs of m6A regulatory genes. (A-B) OS and DFS of patients with any CNVs of m6A regulatory genes or with diploid genes. (C-H) OS and DFS for patients with different CNV types of METTL3, METTL14 and YTHDC1.
Univariate and Multivariate COX regression analysis of m6A regulatory genes for ccRCC patients' overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)*.
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR | P | HR (95% CI) | P | HR | P | ||
| Age (>60 vs <=60) | 1.787(1.294-2.467) | 1.714(1.096-2.68) | 1.419(0.997-2.018) | 0.052 | |||||
| Gender (male vs female) | 1.078(0.782-1.485) | 0.648 | 1.398(0.945-2.069) | 0.094 | |||||
| Stage (I-II vs III-IV) | 4.370(3.116-6.128) | 1.313(0.54-3.192) | 0.548 | 6.426(4.327-9.545) | 4.499(1.92-10.541) | ||||
| M (M1 vs M1) | 4.400(3.185-6.080) | 2.701(1.594-4.575) | 7.876(5.411-11.463) | 3.133(1.819-5.394) | |||||
| N (N1 vs N0) | 2.880(1.524-5.442) | 1.468(0.735-2.933) | 0.277 | 3.851(1.888-7.855) | 2.078(1.01-4.276) | ||||
| T (T3-T4 vs T1-T2) | 3.645(2.643-5.028) | 1.608(0.719-3.596) | 0.247 | 4.413(3.063-6.359) | 0.734(0.354-1.526) | 0.408 | |||
| Grade (3-5 vs 1-2) | 2.842(1.972-4.098) | 2.037(1.205-3.442) | 3.337(2.21-5.039) | 1.577(0.926-2.688) | 0.094 | ||||
| TP53 (altered vs diploid) | 1.300(0.853-1.980) | 0.222 | 1.193(0.732-1.946) | 0.479 | |||||
| VHL (altered vs diploid) | 0.945(0.555-1.610) | 0.835 | 1.130(0.608-2.103) | 0.699 | |||||
| m6A regulator alteration (Writer loss + Eraser gain vs others) | 1.495(1.043-2.142) | 1.69(1.006-2.84) | 1.654(1.102-2.485) | 1.463(0.819-2.614) | 0.199 | ||||
*Ambiguous variables (Nx, Mx, N/A, discrepancy and Gx) were excluded.
Figure 4OS and DFS of ccRCC patients with simultaneous alterations of writer genes and eraser genes.
Gene sets enrichment of low METTL3 mRNA expression level in the ccRCC cohort.
| HALLMARK_ADIPOGENESIS | 190 | 0.48 | 1.72 | 0.028 | 0.227 |
| HALLMARK_MTORC1_SIGNALING | 194 | 0.48 | 1.70 | 0.036 | 0.174 |
| HALLMARK_XENOBIOTIC_METABOLISM | 194 | 0.48 | 1.61 | 0.027 | 0.232 |
| HALLMARK_REACTIVE_OXIGEN_SPECIES_PATHWAY | 44 | 0.49 | 1.57 | 0.048 | 0.228 |
Figure 5GSEA results of different expression level of Gene set enrichment plots of (A) adipogenesis, (B) mTORC1 signaling, (C) reactive oxygen species, and (D) xenobiotic metabolism pathways related to low METTL3 mRNA level in the ccRCC samples.