| Literature DB >> 32099529 |
Qiliang Peng1,2, Ming Cheng3, Ting Li1,2, Xiangying Chen1,2, Yi Shen4, Yaqun Zhu1,2, Bo Xu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that microRNA-200s (miR-200a, miR-200b and miR-200c) could serve as promising molecular biomarkers for cancer prognosis. Nevertheless, the associations between miR-200s expression and colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis remain controversial.Entities:
Keywords: Bioinformatics; Biomarker; Colorectal cancer; Prognosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32099529 PMCID: PMC7029504 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-020-1142-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Fig. 1A flowchart presenting the steps of literature retrieval and selection
Main characteristics of the studies selected for the meta-analysis
| First author | Year | Country | Ethnicity | M/F | N | Age | TNM stage | miRNA | Sample souce | Methods | Endpoints | Median follow-up time | Hazard ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xi | 2006 | Germany | Europeans | 10/14 | 24 | 62 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT–PCR | OS | 40 | 0.68 (0.51–0.92) |
| Toiyama | 2014 | Japan | Asians | 105/77 | 182 | 67 | I–IV | miR-200c | Blood | RT–PCR | OS | 50 | 0.37 (0.18–0.78) |
| Toiyama | 2014 | Japan | Asians | 89/67 | 156 | 68 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT–PCR | OS | 50 | 1.79 (0.91–3.57) |
| Pichler | 2014 | USA | Americans | 71/40 | 111 | 60 | II–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT–PCR | OS | 38 | 2.04 (1.28–3.25) |
| Diaz | 2014 | Spain | Europeans | 69/58 | 127 | 67 | I–III | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 113 | 1.20 (1.03–1.40) |
| Diaz | 2014 | Spain | Europeans | 69/58 | 127 | 67 | I–III | miR-200c | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 113 | 1.12 (1.01–1.25) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 162/146 | 308 | 70 | I–III | miR-200a | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 0.95 (0.71–1.26) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 162/146 | 308 | 70 | I–III | miR-200b | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 1.29 (0.96–1.75) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 162/146 | 308 | 70 | I–III | miR-200c | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 1.19 (0.93–1.52) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 130/89 | 219 | 68 | IV | miR-200a | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 0.81 (0.67–0.99) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 130/89 | 219 | 68 | IV | miR-200b | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 0.83 (0.67–1.03) |
| Maierthaler | 2016 | Germany | Europeans | 130/89 | 219 | 68 | IV | miR-200c | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 72 | 0.87 (0.73–1.03) |
| Sun | 2016 | USA | Americans | 22/25 | 47 | 54 | I–IV | miR-200b | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 28 | 0.38 (0.19–0.77) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 401/344 | 745 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.12 (0.95–1.33) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 401/344 | 745 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.01 (0.93–1.10) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 401/344 | 745 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.11 (0.95–1.30) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 401/344 | 745 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.01 (0.90–1.14) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 401/344 | 745 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.08 (0.90–1.28) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 213/183 | 396 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.18 (0.97–1.41) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 213/183 | 396 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.10 (1.01–1.20) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 213/183 | 396 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.41 (1.05–1.89) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 213/183 | 396 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.09 (0.92–1.28) |
| Slattery | 2016 | USA | Americans | 213/183 | 396 | 64 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 50 | 1.28 (0.96–1.72) |
| Roh | 2018 | South Korea | Asians | 67/42 | 109 | 68 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 35 | 0.45 (0.16–1.27) |
| Shelton | 2018 | USA | Americans | NA | 106 | NA | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 120 | 2.27 (1.27–4.35) |
| Shelton | 2018 | USA | Americans | NA | 108 | NA | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 120 | 2.17 (1.35–3.57) |
| Santasusagna | 2018 | Spain | Europeans | 31/19 | 50 | 72 | I–III | miR-200c | Blood | RT-PCR | OS | 45 | 0.81 (0.67–0.99) |
| Carter | 2019 | USA | Americans | 112/87 | 199 | 66 | I–IV | miR-200a | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 96 | 2.01(1.09–3.72) |
| Carter | 2019 | USA | Americans | 112/87 | 199 | 66 | I–IV | miR-200b | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 96 | 1.80 (0.98–3.31) |
| Carter | 2019 | USA | Americans | 112/87 | 199 | 66 | I–IV | miR-200c | Tissue | RT-PCR | OS | 96 | 1.97(1.08–3.62) |
F female, M male, N number, OS overall survival
Fig. 2Forest plot of studies evaluating the correlation of low miR-200s expression with overall survival of colorectal cancer patients
Results of subgroup and meta-regression analyses
| Subgroup | Studies | HR (95% CI) | P-value | Heterogeneity (I2) (%) | Pheterogeneity | Meta-regression (P-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample source | P = 0.196 | |||||
| Blood | 9 | 0.89 (0.76–1.05) | P = 0.161 | 68.5 | P = 0.001 | |
| Tissue | 21 | 1.16 (1.08–1.26) | P < 0.001 | 64.4 | P < 0.001 | |
| Sample size | P = 0.124 | |||||
| Large (> median) | 16 | 1.06(1.01–1.12) | P = 0.036 | 40.5 | P = 0.047 | |
| Small (< median) | 14 | 1.17 (0.94–1.46) | P = 0.159 | 82.1 | P < 0.001 | |
| Ethnicity | P = 0.136 | |||||
| Asian | 3 | 0.69 (0.23–2.01) | P = 0.491 | 81.3 | P = 0.005 | |
| Europeans | 10 | 0.98 (0.87–1.10) | P = 0.707 | 72.1 | P < 0.001 | |
| Americans | 17 | 1.19 (1.08–1.30) | P < 0.001 | 67.1 | P < 0.001 | |
| miR-200s classification | P = 0.656 | |||||
| miR-200a | 10 | 1.13 (1.01–1.26) | P = 0.027 | 69.6 | P = 0.001 | |
| miR-200b | 9 | 1.14 (0.97–1.33) | P = 0.113 | 72.3 | P < 0.001 | |
| miR-200c | 11 | 1.00 (0.85–1.17) | P = 0.973 | 74.0 | P < 0.001 | |
Fig. 3Sensitivity analysis for the influence of individual studies on summarized hazard ratios
Fig. 4Funnel plot for publication bias analysis
Fig. 5Top ten GO annotation of miR-200s target genes. a Biological processes for miR-200a; b Cell component for miR-200a; c Molecular function for miR-200a; d Biological processes for miR-200b; e Cell component for miR-200b; f Molecular function for miR-200b; g Biological processes for miR-200c; h Cell component for miR-200c; i Molecular function for miR-200c
Fig. 6Pathway enrichment results. a Top 20 pathways enriched by all the target genes of miR-200a; b Top 20 pathways enriched by the hub nodes of miR-200b; c Top 20 pathways enriched by the hub nodes of miR-200c
Fig. 7The FOXO signaling pathway enriched in KEGG. Objects with pentagrams are acting locus by mapped genes
Fig. 8PPI network construction results. a Degree distributions of nodes for the network set up with miR-200a targets; b Degree distributions of nodes for the network set up with miR-200b targets; c Degree distributions of nodes for the network set up with miR-200c targets; d Hub genes of the network for miR-200a targets; e Hub genes of the network for miR-200b targets; f Hub genes of the network for miR-200c targets; g Pathway enrichment results for the selected hub genes of miR-200a targets network; h Pathway enrichment results for the selected hub genes of miR-200b targets network; i Pathway enrichment results for the selected hub genes of miR-200c targets network
Fig. 9Module analysis results of the PPI network. a The most significant module in the PPI network for miR-200a targets; b The most significant module in the PPI network for miR-200b targets; c The most significant module in the PPI network for miR-200c targets; d Pathways enriched by all the nodes involved in the identified module for miR-200a; e Pathways enriched by all the nodes involved in the identified module for miR-200b; f Pathways enriched by all the nodes involved in the identified module for miR-200c