| Literature DB >> 31856876 |
Bin Zhu1,3, Lap Ah Tse2, Difei Wang1,3, Hela Koka1, Tongwu Zhang1, Mustapha Abubakar1, Priscilla Lee4, Feng Wang4, Cherry Wu5, Koon Ho Tsang6, Wing-Cheong Chan5, Sze Hong Law6, Mengjie Li4,7, Wentao Li4, Suyang Wu4, Zhiguang Liu4, Bixia Huang4, Han Zhang1, Eric Tang1, Zhengyan Kan8, Soohyeon Lee9, Yeon Hee Park10, Seok Jin Nam10, Mingyi Wang1,3, Xuezheng Sun11, Kristine Jones1,3, Bin Zhu1,3, Amy Hutchinson1,3, Belynda Hicks1,3, Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson1, Jianxin Shi1, Montserrat Garcia-Closas1, Stephen Chanock1, Xiaohong R Yang12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of immune gene expression patterns of luminal breast cancer (BC), which is clinically heterogeneous and overall considered as low immunogenic, has not been well studied especially in non-European populations. Here, we aimed at characterizing the immune gene expression profile of luminal BC in an Asian population and associating it with patient characteristics and tumor genomic features.Entities:
Keywords: APOBEC3B germline deletion; Asian; Immune subtypes; Luminal breast cancer; Somatic mutations; Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31856876 PMCID: PMC6924001 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1218-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Fig. 1Consensus clustering of 92 luminal breast tumors from Hong Kong patients based on 130 immune-related genes. a Consensus cluster matrix showing three major clusters. b Gene expression heatmap showing gene expression levels of 13 immune metagenes in the three luminal immune subtypes (low-TIL, high-ISG, and high-TIL) and in non-luminal (HER2-enriched and basal-like) tumors. Each column represents a patient, grouped by immune subtypes; each row represents a gene, grouped by 13 immune pathways. Normalized gene expression value with mean = 0 and standard deviation (SD) = 1 is indicated by 5 color categories representing the increasing expression level from green to red. LCK lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase, Tfh helper follicular T cell, Tregs regulatory T cell, NK natural killer cell, MHC major histocompatibility complex, STAT1 signal transducer and activator of transcription 1, IF_I interferon inducible genes (boxed for Lum2/high-ISG); PAM50: green = luminal A, blue = luminal B, gray = basal, black = HER2-enriched
Fig. 2The immune phenotype in the three luminal immune subtypes (low-TIL, high-ISG, and high-TIL) and in non-luminal (HER2-enriched and basal-like) tumors. a Abundance of eight immune cell subpopulations (estimated by MCP-counter). b Number of TILs in frozen (left) and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors based on pathology assessment of H&E sections. c Relative fractions of immune cell populations (inferred by CIBERSORT). Immune cell populations with low fractions (average < 10% across all samples) are not shown
Fig. 3Average immune scores (inferred by ESTIMATE) in the three luminal immune subtypes and non-luminal (HER2-enriched and basal-like) tumors in HKBC, KBC, and TCGA (Asian, African American, and White, separately) datasets
Fig. 4Genomic features associated with different immune subgroups. a ESR1 and ESR2 expression ratio (log scale). b Nonsynonymous mutation burden (log scale)
The distribution of rs12628403 genotype by tumor subtypes in the Hong Kong breast cancer study (HKBC) and TCGA white population
| Low-TIL, | High-ISG, | High-TIL, | HER2+basal, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HKBC | A/A | 10 (29.4%) | 9 (32.2%) | 3 (21.4%) | 15 (46.9%) |
| A/C | 17 (50.0%) | 15 (53.5%) | 8 (57.2%) | 13 (40.6%) | |
| C/C | 7 (20.6%) | 4 (14.3%) | 3 (21.4%) | 4 (12.5%) | |
| Ref | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.35 | ||
| TCGA White | A/A | 111 (90.3%) | 117 (86.0%) | 60 (85.7%) | 158 (92.9%) |
| A/C | 11 (8.9%) | 18 (13.3%) | 10 (14.3%) | 10 (5.9%) | |
| C/C | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.2%) | |
| Ref | 0.66 | 0.44 | 0.62 | ||
*P values were obtained from Fisher’s exact test by comparing each immune subtype with low-TIL
Frequency of nonsynonymous TP53 mutations by tumor subtypes in the Hong Kong breast cancer study (HKBC) and TCGA white population
| Low-TIL, | High-ISG, | High-TIL, | HER2+basal, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HKBC | WT | 29 (100.0%) | 11 (57.9%) | 11 (100.0%) | 10 (45.5%) |
| MUT | 0 (0%) | 8 (42.1%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (54.5%) | |
| Ref | 0.0002 | – | < 0.0001 | ||
| TCGA White | WT | 169 (95.5%) | 142 (87.1%) | 83 (91.2%) | 105 (50.7%) |
| MUT | 8 (4.5%) | 21 (12.9%) | 8 (8.8%) | 102 (49.3%) | |
| Ref | 0.01 | 0.18 | < 0.0001 | ||
*P values were obtained from Fisher’s exact test by comparing each immune subtype with low-TIL
Fig. 5The mean differences in the abundance of eight immune cell subpopulations (estimated by MCP-counter) between paired tumor and normal tissue (T-N, N = 80) for the three luminal immune subtypes and non-luminal (HER2-enriched and basal-like) patients in HKBC, respectively. 0, no difference; > 0, higher in tumor than normal tissue; < 0, lower in tumor than in normal tissue