| Literature DB >> 32757436 |
Fei Su1, Fen-Fang Zhou2,3, Tao Zhang1,4, Dan-Wen Wang3,5, Da Zhao1, Xiao-Ming Hou1, Mao-Hui Feng3,5,6,7.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to explore the underlying mechanisms involved in gastric cancer (GC) formation using data-independent acquisition (DIA) quantitative proteomics analysis. We identified the differences in protein expression and related functions involved in biological metabolic processes in GC. Totally, 745 differentially expressed proteins (DEEntities:
Keywords: DIA; biomarkers; gastric cancer; metabolic network
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32757436 PMCID: PMC7521272 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.15712
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
The clinical characteristics of the GC patients
| Characteristics | Variable | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Age | <60 | 6 |
| ≥60 | 4 | |
| Sex | Male | 5 |
| Female | 5 | |
| Tumour Size | <3 cm | 4 |
| ≥3 cm | 6 | |
| Tumour differentiation | Well and moderately | 3 |
| Poorly | 7 | |
| Tumour infiltration | T1 + T2 | 4 |
| T3 + T4 | 6 | |
| Local lymph node metastasis | Negative | 5 |
| Positive | 5 | |
| Distant metastasis | M0 | 8 |
| M1 | 2 |
Abbreviations: GC, gastric cancer; M, metastasis; T, tumour.
Figure 1The DIA‐based quantitative proteomic landscape of the gastric cancer (T) and adjacent tissues (P). A, The simplified workflow of the DIA proteomics technology. B, Principal component analysis illustrating moderate clustering of gastric cancer and adjacent tissues. C, Volcano plot of log2 fold‐changes in DIA intensities (T versus P) reveal a large number of differentially expressed proteins. Proteins significantly elevated in T or P are coloured in red and green, respectively. D, Heatmap of the 745 significantly dysregulated proteins between T and P groups. Light blue represents the down‐regulated protein and orange indicates the up‐regulated protein in the gastric cancer group
Figure 2GO analysis of the differentially expressed proteins between the gastric cancer (T) and adjacent tissues (P). A, Gene Ontology analysis conducted for the differentially expressed proteins in terms of the top 20 ranking biological process. B, Gene Ontology analysis carried out for the differentially expressed proteins in terms of the top 20 ranking cellular component. C, Gene Ontology analysis performed for the differentially expressed proteins in terms of the top 20 ranking molecular function
Figure 3WGCNA analysis of the GC proteome profiling. A, Samples clustering were conducted to detect outliers between the gastric cancer (T) and adjacent tissues (P). B, Cluster dendrogram was generated by hierarchical clustering to show the modules of highly interconnected groups of genes between T and P groups. C, Heatmap was used to shown the correlation coefficient of module‐traits. D, KEGG pathway analysis of proteins in turquoise
Figure 4The pathway analysis of the differentially expressed proteins between the gastric cancer (T) and adjacent tissues (P). A, The significantly enriched top 20 ranking KEGG pathway of the DEPs. B, The oxidative phosphorylation signalling pathway (P‐value = 6.2e−49) played a crucial role in pathogenesis of GC. The green indicates the down‐regulated protein expression in the gastric cancer group. C, PPI network analysis of DEPs involved in oxidative phosphorylation by STRING database. D, The hub network of oxidative phosphorylation
Figure 5GSEA analysis of the whole quantified proteins between the GC and adjacent groups. A, GSEA comparing for enrichment of the oxidative phosphorylation pathway. NES = −2.73 and ***P < .001. B, Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set oxidative phosphorylation. C, GSEA comparing for enrichment of the oxidative phosphorylation pathway. NES = −2.22 and ***P < .001. D, Heat map of core enrichment genes in the gene set TCA cycle
Figure 6Gene expression and clinical significance in the TCGA. A, Box plots of UQCRQ mRNA expression (P‐value = .0012). B, C, Overall survival (OS) and Post Progression Survival (PPS) of 876 gastric cancer patients according to the UQCRQ status by Kaplan‐Meier Plotter database. D, Box plots of NDUFB7 mRNA expression (P‐value = 1.0e−6). E, F, Overall survival (OS) and Post Progression Survival (PPS) of 876 gastric cancer patients according to the NDUFB7 status by Kaplan‐Meier Plotter database. G, Box plots of UQCRC2 mRNA expression (P‐value = .0064). H, I, Overall survival (OS) and Post Progression Survival (PPS)of 876 gastric cancer patients according to the UQCRC2 status by Kaplan‐Meier Plotter database
Figure 7The expression level of UQCRQ, NDUFB7 and UQCRC2 protein in GC and adjacent tissues
Figure 8Correlation of UQCRQ, NDUFB7 and UQCRC2 expression with immune infiltration level in gastric cancer. The correlation of UQCRQ, NDUFB7 and UQCRC2 relative expression with tumour purity and gastric cancer infiltrating immune cells, like B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, macrophages, neutrophils and dendritic cells were presented