| Literature DB >> 32479426 |
Jianwen Jiang1,2,3,4, Qiuxian Zheng4,5, Weiwei Zhu2,3, Xinhua Chen2,3,4, Haifeng Lu4,5, Deying Chen4,5, Hua Zhang4,5, Min Shao1, Lin Zhou2,3, Shusen Zheng2,3.
Abstract
Metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We used data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and the International Cancer Genome Consortium to assess the alterations in glycolytic and cholesterogenic genes in HCC and to determine their association with clinical features in HCC patients. Based on the gene expression profiles from these databases, we established four subtypes of HCC: cholesterogenic, glycolytic, mixed, and quiescent. The prognosis of the cholesterogenic subgroup was poorer than that of the glycolytic group. Tumors in the glycolytic group were more sensitive to chemotherapy. We also explored the relationships between these metabolic subtypes and previously established HCC subgroups. Glycolytic gene expression correlated strongly with poorer prognostic gene expression in the Hoshida classification of HCC. Whole-genome analyses indicated that aberrant amplification of TP53 and MYC in HCC were associated with abnormal anabolic cholesterol metabolism. The mRNA levels of mitochondrial pyruvate carriers 1 and 2 differed among the HCC metabolic subtypes. In a bioinformatics analysis we identified genomic characteristics of tumor metabolism that varied among different cancer types. These findings demonstrate that metabolic subtypes may be valuable prognostic indicators in HCC patients.Entities:
Keywords: cholesterogenic; glycolysis; hepatocellular carcinoma; metabolic classification; molecular mechanism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32479426 PMCID: PMC7346031 DOI: 10.18632/aging.103254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1The metabolic gene landscape of HCC based on glycolytic and cholesterogenic clusters. (A) Heat map of consensus clustering (k=5) for glycolytic and cholesterogenic genes in resected and metastatic LIHC samples (n=610). (B) Scatter plot of the median levels of co-expressed glycolytic (x-axis) and cholesterogenic (y-axis) genes in each LIHC sample. Metabolic subgroups were assigned based on the relative levels of glycolytic and cholesterogenic genes. (C) Heat map of differential gene expression patterns in glycolytic and cholesterogenic gene clusters across subgroups. (D) Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of patients with all subtypes of LIHC; the log-rank test p value is shown. (E) Overall survival analyses in the metastatic subgroup of LIHC patients; the log-rank test p value is shown. (F) Overall survival analyses in the non-metastatic LIHC cohort; the log-rank test p value is shown.
Figure 2Gene mutational landscape across metabolic subgroups of HCC. (A) Oncoprint analysis indicating the distribution of SNVs, INDELs and CNVs of frequently mutated genes in LIHC across the metabolic subtypes. (B) Box plot of the median expression of cholesterogenic genes in samples with CNVs in TP53 and/or MYC. (C) Scatter plot of the correlation between the median cholesterogenic gene expression and MYC expression. (D) Scatter plot of the relationship between the median cholesterogenic gene expression and TP53 expression.
Figure 3The alignment of LIHC metabolic subgroups with known gene expression subtypes. (A) Overlay of the metabolic gene profiles with LIHC expression subtypes based on the known classifications of Hoshida et al., Budhu et al. and Chew et al. (B) Bar plots of the proportion of LIHC expression subtypes in each metabolic subgroup. (C) Scatter plots depicting the correlations of glycolytic and cholesterogenic gene levels with prognostic gene levels in the Hoshida classification.
Figure 4Association of (A) Oncoprint indicating the distribution of MPC1 and MPC2 SNVs and CNVs across the metabolic groups. Only one case was found with an SNV in MPC2. (B) Box plots of significant (p < 0.001) differences in MPC1 and MPC2 levels across the LIHC metabolic subgroups. (C) Scatter plot of the correlations of 25,483 genes with MPC1 (x-axis) and MPC2 (y-axis). In total, 168 genes correlated positively (Spearman correlation BH-adjusted p < 0.01) with both MPC1 and MPC2, while 14 genes correlated negatively with both MPC1 and MPC2 (adjusted p < 0.01). (D) The most significantly enriched (hypergeometric test BH-adjusted p < 0.05) gene sets among the genes positively (left) and negatively (right) associated with MPC1/2 expression.
Figure 5The glycolytic and cholesterogenic gene profiles of other cancer types. (A) Heat map depicting that glycolytic and cholesterogenic genes were robustly co-expressed when consensus clusters were applied to each individual cancer type. (B) Top: Bar plots showing the proportions of the metabolic subgroups across the various cancer types. Bottom: The correlation between cholesterogenic gene expression and the expression of Hoshida poor prognostic genes, KRAS, MYC and MPC1/2 in each cancer type. Median glycolytic gene expression correlated positively (BH-adjusted p < 0.05) with basal-like gene expression in all cancer types. The correlation between MPC1/2 expression and glycolytic gene expression was validated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and BH correction. (C) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis curves depicting the differences in median overall survival across the metabolic subgroups in CESC. (D) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis curves demonstrating the differences in median overall survival in KIRC.
Figure 6Batch correction of queued datasets from TCGA and ICGC. (A) Gene datasets were validated before normalization. (B) Gene datasets were illustrated after normalization.