| Literature DB >> 32608475 |
Li Qiao1, Lili Xia2, Yan Dong3, Yajuan Cheng1, Hongbao Cao4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that uterine fibroids (UFs) may increase the risk of endometrial carcinoma (EC) with the underlying mechanism largely unknown. Here, we explore whether UF could be an influential factor for EC.Entities:
Keywords: HOPX; HTRA3; PCNA; Uterine fibroids; endometrial carcinoma; mega-analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32608475 PMCID: PMC7352044 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20200350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
UFs datasets used for EC genetic regulator meta-analysis
| Study name | GEO ID | #Control/#Case | Country | Sample source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoffman et al., 2003 | GSE593 | 5/5 | U.S.A. | Uterine leiomyoma |
| Zavadil et al., 2010 | GSE23112 | 5/5 | U.S.A. | Uterine leiomyoma |
| Chuang et al., 2012 | GSE38817 | 4/4 | U.S.A. | Uterine leiomyoma |
| Maekawa et al., 2013 | GSE45188 | 3/6 | Japan | Uterine leiomyoma |
| Maekawa et al., 2013 | GSE45189 | 3/6 | Japan | Uterine leiomyoma |
| Miyata et al., 2017 | GSE68295 | 3/9 | Japan | Uterine leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma |
MLR analysis of age and co-incidence of other diseases
| MLR parameters | Other gynecological diseases | Age | |
|---|---|---|---|
| β | 0.0040 | 0.0013 | |
| Low limit | −0.0028 | 0.00093 | |
| Up limit | 0.011 | 0.0016 | |
| 0.12 | |||
| β | 0.44 | 0.0051 | |
| Low limit | 0.41 | 0.0039 | |
| Up limit | 0.46 | 0.0063 | |
The values in bold are the p-values.
Results of meta-analysis and MLR analysis
| Gene name | Meta-analysis results | MLR results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random-effects model | #Study | LFC | #Sample | Country | Study date | ||
| 0 | 4 | 1.00 | 3.86e-2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
| 1 | 4 | 0.82 | 1.77e-2 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 6 | 0.79 | 4.50e-8 | 2.32e-2 | 3.77e-2 | 0.96 | |
| 0 | 4 | −1.24 | 4.96e-3 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 5 | −2.14 | 8.44e-13 | 1.00 | 4.73e-9 | 1.17e-7 | |
Figure 1The results of the three EC inhibitors in the meta-analysis
(A) HTRA3; (B) HOPX; (C) PCNA. The bar plot on the right of each figure represents the normalized weights for each dataset/study, ranged within (0, 1); the brighter (green) the color, the bigger the weight (labeled right next to the bar). The star (in red) and lines (in blue) on the left are the mean of effect size (log fold change) and 95% CI of each dataset/study, respectively.
Figure 2Venn diagram of the shared genetic basis by UF and EC
The genes were downstream targets of UF and upstream regulators of EC that were identified by using Pathway Studio (www.pathwaystudio.com).
Figure 3Potential pathway—the UF acts as a protective factor for EC
The pathway was generated using literature-based knowledge as well as the meta-analysis results in the present study, as detailed in the supplementary data UF_EC (UF_EC_Pathway). Pathways composed of genes highlighted in red (PGR and ESR1) were these built based-on literature analyses only; pathways composed of genes highlighted in green (PCNA, HOPX, and XTRA3) were based-on both meta-analysis and literature-based pathways analysis.