| Literature DB >> 31811111 |
Yan Lin1, Rong Liang1, Jiazhou Ye2, Qian Li1, Ziyu Liu1, Xing Gao1, Xuemin Piao1, Rongyun Mai1, Donghua Zou3, Lianying Ge1,4.
Abstract
The molecular mechanism of the pathological progression from cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains elusive. In the present study, tissue samples from normal liver, cirrhosis and HCC were subjected to differentially gene expression analysis, weighted gene correlation network analysis to identify the twenty hub genes (TOP2A, CDC20, PTTG1, CDCA5, CCNB2, PRC1, KIF20A, SF3B4, HSP90AB1, FOXD2, PLOD3, CCT3, SETDB1, VPS45, SPDL1, RACGAP1, MED24, KIAA0101, ZNF282, and USP21) in the pathological progression from cirrhosis to HCC. Each sample was calculated a hub gene set variation analysis (HGSVA) score using Gene Set Variation Analysis, The HGSVA score significantly increased with progression from cirrhosis to HCC, and this result was validated in two independent data sets. Moreover, this score may be used as a blood-based marker for HCC and is an independent prognostic factor of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). High expression of the hub genes may be driven by hypomethylation. The twenty gene-based gene set variation score may reflect the pathological progression from cirrhosis to HCC and is an independent prognostic factor for both OS and RFS.Entities:
Keywords: HCC; gene set; hepatocellular carcinoma; multistep hepatocarcinogenesis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31811111 PMCID: PMC6932912 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1Differentially expressed gene (DEG) analysis. (A) Volcano plot of the DEGs. Red indicates upregulated and blue indicates downregulated in cirrhosis/HCC. (B) Hierarchical clustering dendrograms of the expression patterns of DEGs that can basically distinguish normal liver tissue and cirrhosis/HCC.
Figure 2Weighted correlation network analysis. (A) Define power related to modules. (B) Recognition module. (C) The red module is positively correlated with phenotype, the green module is negatively correlated with phenotype, and gray is not related to phenotype. (D) MM and GS are highly correlated in the red module.
Figure 3Results of functional enrichment. (A) The red module is significantly enriched in biological processes. (B) The red module is significantly enriched in KEGG pathways. (C) The green module is significantly enriched in biological processes. (D) The green module is significantly enriched in KEGG pathways.
Figure 4The HGSVA score increased significantly with the progression from cirrhosis to HCC. (A) The HGSVA score in GSE89377. (B) The HGSVA score in GSE6764. (C) The HGSVA score in the TCGA HCC data set (phenotype defined by pathological stage). (D) The HGSVA score in the TCGA HCC data set (phenotype defined by tissue grade). (E) The HGSVA score in GSE6764. (F) ROC results: the AUC is significant, which indicates that the gene set can be used for the early diagnosis of HCC.
Figure 5Prognostic value of the HGSVA score. (A) The HGSVA score was associated with overall survival. (B) The HGSVA score was associated with recurrence-free survival. (C) The HGSVA score was associated with overall survival, which was verified by the whole blood profile.
Univariate/Multivariate cox analyses of overall survival.
| Gender (male/female) | -0.232 | 0.228 | 0.544-1.156 | |||
| Age (>65 years/<=65 years) | 0.239 | 0.202 | 0.88-1.833 | |||
| Grade (G3-4/G1-2) | 0.131 | 0.498 | 0.781-1.663 | |||
| T stage (T3-4/T1-2) | 0.919 | 0.000 | 1.723-3.649 | 0.348 | 0.733 | 0.192-10.457 |
| Lymph node stage (N2-3/N0-1) | 0.684 | 0.341 | 0.485-8.086 | |||
| Metastasis(M1/M0) | 1.382 | 0.019 | 1.252-12.679 | 0.789 | 0.195 | 0.667-7.263 |
| Pathological stage (III-IV/I-II) | 0.911 | 0.000 | 1.711-3.613 | 0.589 | 0.562 | 0.246-13.23 |
| HGSVA score (high/low) | 0.864 | 0.000 | 1.614-3.488 | 1.069 | 0.000 | 1.663-5.098 |
HR, Hazard Ratio; CI, confidence interval; HGSVA, hub gene set variation analysis.
Univariate/Multivariate cox analyses of recurrence-free survival.
| Gende r(male/female) | -0.009 | 0.957 | 0.71-1.384 | |||
| Age (>65 years/<=65 years) | -0.030 | 0.854 | 0.709-1.329 | |||
| Grade (G3-4/G1-2) | 0.101 | 0.538 | 0.803-1.524 | |||
| T stage (T3-4/T1-2) | 0.887 | 0.000 | 1.735-3.400 | 0.708 | 0.484 | 0.28-14.746 |
| Lymph node stage (N2-3/N0-1) | 0.343 | 0.631 | 0.348-5.715 | |||
| Metastasis (M1/M0) | 0.909 | 0.206 | 0.607-10.150 | |||
| Pathological stage (III-IV/I-II) | 0.865 | 0.000 | 1.7-3.3200 | 0.121 | 0.904 | 0.157-8.107 |
| HGSVA score (high/low) | 0.554 | 0.001 | 1.269-2.387 | 0.474 | 0.004 | 1.168-2.211 |
HR, Hazard Ratio; CI, confidence interval; HGSVA, hub gene set variation analysis.
Figure 6High expression of genes by immunohistochemistry.
Figure 7(A) Mutation of the 20 hub genes. (B) Methylation of the 20 hub genes.
Figure 8The workflow of the present study.