| Literature DB >> 31911802 |
Shuang Bai1,2, Ying-Bin Yan1, Wei Chen1, Ping Zhang1, Tong-Mei Zhang1, Yuan-Yuan Tian1, Hao Liu1.
Abstract
High-throughput gene expression profiling has recently emerged as a promising technique that provides insight into cancer subtype classification and improved prediction of prognoses. Immune/inflammatory-related mRNAs may potentially enrich genes to allow researchers to better illustrate cancer microenvironments. Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OC-SCC) exhibits high morbidity and poor prognosis compared to that of other types of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and these differences may be partially due to differences within the tumor microenvironments. Based on this, we designed an immune-related signature to improve the prognostic prediction of OC-SCC. A cohort of 314 OC-SCC samples possessing whole genome expression data that were sourced from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database was included for discovery. The GSE41613 database was used for validation. A risk score was established using immune/inflammatory signatures acquired from the training dataset. Principal components analysis, GO analysis, and gene set enrichment analysis were used to explore the bioinformatic implications. When grouped by the dichotomized risk score based on the signature, this classifier could successfully discriminate patients with distinct prognoses within the training and validation cohorts (P < 0.05 in both cohorts) and within different clinicopathological subgroups. Similar somatic mutation patterns were observed between high and low risk score groups, and different copy number variation patterns were also identified. Further bioinformatic analyses suggested that the lower risk score group was significantly correlated with immune/inflammatory-related biological processes, while the higher risk score group was highly associated with cell cycle-related processes. The analysis indicated that the risk score was a robust predictor of patient survival, and its functional annotation was well established. Therefore, this bioinformatic-based immune-related signature suggested that the microenvironment of OC-SCC could distinguish among patients with different underlying biological processes and clinical outcomes, and the use of this signature may shed light on future OC-SCC classification and therapeutic design.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31911802 PMCID: PMC6930791 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3865279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1Different immune/inflammatory patterns of OC-SCC subtypes and the workflow of the signature establishment. (a) Principal components analysis of immune/inflammatory genes among four subtypes of OC-SCC. (b) Workflow of the signature establishment.
Figure 2Overview of the eighteen-gene-based risk score and its prognostic value across different cohorts. (a) Heatmap depicting the gene expression values of the eighteen genes comprising the signature of the training cohort. Columns representing each sample that were sorted by increasing value of the risk score. Rows representing the expression value of each gene. (b) Kaplan–Meier survival analyses based on the median cutoff of the risk score within the training dataset. (c) Kaplan–Meier survival analyses based on the median cutoff of the risk scores within the validation dataset.
COX regression analysis of the risk score and other characteristics in the TCGA OC-SCC cohort.
| Variables | Univariate Cox regression | Multivariate Cox regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR |
| HR |
| |
| Risk score (high vs low) | 2.09 | 1.7 | 1.99 | 0.0002 |
| Age (>60 vs ≤60) | 1.15 | 0.3963 | 1.31 | 0.1580 |
| Gender (female vs male) | 1.08 | 0.6698 | 1.10 | 0.6357 |
| Tobacco history (yes vs no) | 1.29 | 0.2099 | 1.27 | 0.2740 |
| Alcohol history (yes vs no) | 1.07 | 0.6958 | 1.01 | 0.9507 |
| HPV status (positive vs negative) | 0.88 | 0.7502 | 0.86 | 0.7138 |
| Stage (III/IV vs I/II) | 2.23 | 0.0006 | 2.10 | 0.0023 |
HR: hazard ratio.
Figure 3Different mutation and copy number variation patterns of the risk score. (a, b) An analysis of the 20 most mutated genes of either subgroup ((a), lower risk score; (b), higher risk score) was performed. Columns are sorted by samples with increasing risk score. (a) The sum of mutations in each of the sample categories is indicated by the legend; (b) the sum of the mutations in each gene is indicated by the legend. (c, d) The overall recurrent copy number variation (CNV) profile in order of increasing risk score ((c), lower risk score; (d), higher risk score).
Figure 4Biological annotation of the risk score. (a) GO results based on 1355 negatively correlated (R < −0.4) genes. (b) GO results based on 1632 positively correlated (R > 0.2) genes. (c) GSEA results of the lower risk score. (d) GSEA results of the higher risk score.
Figure 5Association between the risk score and tumor purity. (a) Correlation between the ImmnueScore and the risk score and the distribution of the ImmnueScore among subgroups of OC-SCC within the training cohort. (b) Correlation between the StromalScore and the risk score and the distribution of the StromalScore among subgroups of OC-SCC within the training cohort. (c) Correlation between tumor purity and the risk score and the distribution of tumor purity among subgroups of OC-SCC in the training cohort.