| Literature DB >> 32457603 |
Shuoling Chen1,2, Chang Gao1,3, Yangyuan Wu1,2, Zunnan Huang1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: miRNAs and genes can serve as biomarkers for the prognosis and therapy of cervical tumors whose metastasis into lymph nodes is closely associated with disease progression and poor prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; key gene; lymph node metastasis; miRNA; prognostic signature
Year: 2020 PMID: 32457603 PMCID: PMC7226536 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00544
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Figure 1Analysis procedure of the data mining process used to screen tumor biomarkers and key genes in this study. It includes specific bioinformatics methods, data processing tools, and partial research results.
Figure 2Volcano plot of DEMs (A) and DEGs (B). The abscissa represents the log2 transformation value of the differential expression fold change between the cervical cancer samples and the normal samples. The larger the | logFC | value is, the greater the fold change is. The ordinate represents the -log10 transformation value of the FDR value. The larger the -log10 transformation value is, the more significant the difference is. Green dots represent significantly down-regulated miRNAs or genes. Red dots represent significantly up-regulated miRNAs or genes.
Univariate analysis of cervical cancer patients.
| miRNA | HR | z | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.47295993 | −4.710714692 | 2.47E-06 | |
| 0.726460896 | −3.311319458 | 0.000928571 | |
| miR-362 | 0.634317782 | −3.089446858 | 0.002005296 |
| miR-101-2 | 0.70026668 | −2.832903633 | 0.004612729 |
| miR-101-1 | 0.699830285 | −2.831809241 | 0.004628545 |
| 0.753658772 | −2.628062686 | 0.008587269 | |
| miR-1468 | 0.71581814 | −2.570507809 | 0.010154954 |
| miR-204 | 0.852831645 | −2.377156425 | 0.017446688 |
| miR-140 | 0.633673302 | −2.368455333 | 0.017862537 |
| 0.803090114 | −2.212258218 | 0.026948828 | |
| miR-126 | 0.700379333 | −2.186430538 | 0.028784121 |
| miR-218-1 | 0.815625887 | −2.121987729 | 0.033838769 |
| miR-504 | 0.757023197 | −2.003615093 | 0.045111308 |
| miR-99a | 0.879776376 | −1.986775064 | 0.046947329 |
| miR-331 | 0.691475709 | −1.965107538 | 0.049401792 |
Bolded miRNAs are the prognostic miRNAs.
Multivariate analysis of cervical cancer patients.
| Coef | Exp (Coef) | Se (Coef) | z | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.676 | 0.509 | 0.156 | −4.33 | 1.50E-05 | |
| −0.297 | 0.743 | 0.106 | −2.82 | 0.0049 | |
| −0.29 | 0.748 | 0.101 | −2.87 | 0.0042 | |
| −0.209 | 0.811 | 0.101 | −2.07 | 0.0382 |
Figure 3Construction of a prognostic model based on a 4-miRNA signature. (A) From top to bottom: the risk score curve, survival status map, and expression heatmap between the low- and high-risk groups. The color bar shows the relative miRNA expression value with red indicating high expression and green indicating low expression. (B) Survival curve for the low- and high-risk groups. (C) The ROC curve for survival predictions.
Consensus genes of four prognostic miRNAs discovered in the overlap between predicted target genes and DEGs related to cervical cancer lymph node metastasis.
| miRNA | Consensus Genes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATP1A2 | DLGAP2 | FILIP1L | C12orf54 | TLR6 | |
| DAPK1 | DCLK1 | DONSON | SLIT3 | WDHD1 | |
| FBN2 | DCUN1D5 | CHST11 | SLC7A14 | LAMA3 | |
| BCL7A | CDH5 | ZNF471 | CNTN2 | PLXNA4 | |
| COL10A1 | DOK6 | GLP1R | PGM5 | SYNPO2 | |
| EML6 | MLLT6 | ACSS3 | HS6ST2 | NUDT10 | |
| RCC2 | PHOX2B | SAMD4B | |||
| GDNF | ZFPM2 | TRIM36 | NBEA | IGF1 | |
| FOXO4 | FAM199X | HDLBP | TMTC1 | GK | |
| BNC2 | REV3L | SLC2A13 | PDLIM5 | SP2 | |
| TNRC18 | SACS | ST6GALNAC3 | EGLN3 | RTN1 | |
| MMP16 | ITGBL1 | SEMA6A | ACTB | HS6ST1 | |
| REV3L | ZFP14 | SLC38A11 | TNFRSF11B | PAQR9 | |
| ST6GALNAC3 | TUFT1 | ARHGAP6 | CREB3L2 | GATC | |
| HTRA1 | KLHL3 | TPM3 | KCNA6 | GXYLT1 | |
| EBF1 | HTR1F | RAD51B | ZRANB3 | SLITRK4 | |
| RAPGEF4 | DGKB | ||||
| LRP8 | PRAMEF17 | GPR173 | SEMA7A | MMP16 | |
| ATP1A2 | TENM3 | CACNA1C | DSC3 | SECISBP2L | |
| HMGB3 | PTPRB | ABHD2 | GDNF | PTPRC | |
| CMTR2 | CXCL12 | PRICKLE2 | ARMC8 | ||
Figure 4Bar graph illustrating the enrichment analysis. The abscissa represents the number of consensus genes involved in KEGG pathways or GO function annotations. The ordinate represents items of the primary KEGG pathways or GO function annotations.
Figure 5Diagram of the protein-protein interaction network. The dark and light shading of the lines between solid circles indicates high and low interaction relationships, respectively, which is represented by the Combined Score. (A) The color of solid circles representing protein targets is distinguished by the MCODE score value. The blue circles are protein targets with an MCODE score value of 0, and these proteins did not participate in the construction of the key module. The dark and light orange circles are protein targets with a high MCODE score value of 3.000 and 2.000, respectively, and these proteins participated in the construction of the key module. (B) The color of solid circles representing protein targets is distinguished by the logFC value. The green circles are protein targets with a low logFC value and represent significantly down-regulated genes. The red circles are protein targets with a high logFC value and represent significantly up-regulated genes. (C) A module was constructed using the four protein targets with MCODE score values of 3.000. (D) A module was constructed using the three protein targets with MCODE score values of 2.000.
Figure 6MiRNAs-Genes-Pathways and Annotations visualization network denoting the relationships between miRNAs, consensus genes, key genes, key KEGG pathways, and GO functional annotations. Yellow solid circles represent miRNAs, blue solid circles represent consensus genes, red solid circles represent key genes, and green solid circles represent KEGG pathways and GO functional annotations.
The expression of key genes reported from previous experimental studies.
| CXCL12 | IGF1 | WDHD1 | RAD51B | REV3L | PTPRC | CDH5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer | ▼ | ▼ | ▲ | ▼ |
|
|
|
| LNM | ▼ |
|
| △ | △ |
|
|
up-regulated in cervical cancer, agreed with our calculated result.
down-regulated in cervical cancer, agreed with our calculated result.
up-regulated in cervical cancer, disagreed with our calculated result.
up-regulated in other cancers, agreed with our calculated result in cervical cancer.
down-regulated in other cancers, agreed with our calculated result in cervical cancer.
△ up-regulated in other cancers, disagreed with our calculated result in cervical cancer.