| Literature DB >> 31508371 |
Xiangjun Tang1,2,3, Pengfei Xu1, Bin Wang2, Jie Luo2, Rui Fu2, Kuanming Huang2, Longjun Dai2, Junti Lu2, Gang Cao2, Hao Peng2, Li Zhang2, Zhaohui Zhang4, Qianxue Chen1.
Abstract
Introduction: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and malignant variant of intrinsic glial brain tumors. The poor prognosis of GBM has not significantly improved despite the development of innovative diagnostic methods and new therapies. Therefore, further understanding the molecular mechanism that underlies the aggressive behavior of GBM and the identification of appropriate prognostic markers and therapeutic targets is necessary to allow early diagnosis, to develop appropriate therapies and to improve prognoses.Entities:
Keywords: WGCNA; cox proportional hazards regression model; glioblastoma; nomogram; prognostic model
Year: 2019 PMID: 31508371 PMCID: PMC6718733 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Flow chart of data collection and analysis.
Figure 2Network construction of the weighted co-expressed genes and their associations with clinical traits. (A) Hierarchical clustering tree of the TCGA-GBM samples based on the training cohort. Dendrogram tips are labeled with the TCGA-GBM unique name. In the hierarchical dendrogram, lower branches correspond to higher co-expression. The branches of the cluster dendrogram correspond to the 15 different gene modules based on topological overlaps. Each piece of the leaves on the cluster dendrogram represents a gene. (B) Module-trait relationships. The background colors of the numbers represent the strength of the correlation between the gene module and the clinical traits, which increased from blue to red. Each column corresponds to a clinical trait. (C) Visualization of the co-expression network of the green module. The larger the nodes and the numerous edges, the more significant the gene is. Based on weight, not all genes were represented.
Figure 3Functional enrichment analysis. (A) Biological process (B) cellular component, (C) molecular function; (D) enrichment of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis for hub genes related to survival time; (E) The top 14 genes which were significantly related to survival time in univariate analysis; (F–I) Kaplan-Meier curves for CLEC5A,FKBP9, FMOD, and LGALS8 in the TCGA cohort.
Figure 4The prognostic efficiency of the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Heat map of the model genes in (A) training set of the TCGA, (B) test set of GSE16001, (C) test set of Rembrandt; ROC curves of the four genes signature for predicting 12- and 36-months survival of glioblastoma. The 12- and 36-months areas (AUC) under the ROC curves indicate higher predictive value; Kaplan–Meier curves analyze the survival of the high-risk group and the low-risk group, the high-risk group had the worse outcome (P < 0.001).
The prognostic effect of different clinical characteristics.
| CIMP-status | 0.35 | 0.24–0.5 | <0.001 | 0.29 | 0.04–2.19 | 0.232 |
| IDH1-status | 0.34 | 0.21–0.55 | <0.001 | 1.8 | 0.23–14.08 | 0.573 |
| MGMT-status | 0.69 | 0.54–0.87 | <0.001 | 0.84 | 0.64–1.1 | 0.205 |
| Subtype | 0.93 | 0.86–1.01 | 0.07 | - | - | - |
| Age | 1.03 | 1.03–1.04 | <0.001 | 1.03 | 1.02–1.04 | <0.001 |
| Gender | 1.16 | 0.96–1.41 | 0.13 | - | - | - |
| Risk score | 1.57 | 1.3–1.89 | <0.001 | 1.49 | 1.14–1.94 | 0.003 |
These data were used to perform the Cox proportional hazards regression.
Multivariate analysis used stepwise addition of clinical covariates related to survival in univariate analysis (P < 0.01) and the ultimate models contained those covariates that were significantly associated with survival (P < 0.01).
Figure 5Gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and Nomogram. (A) The GSEA showed that high-risk group highly enriched in Base excision repair, Cell cycle, DNA replication, Ribosome; (B) Nomogram to predict the 1- and 3-year OS. Calibration curve for OS nomogram model in the TCGA cohort (C) and GSE16011 cohort (D).