Literature DB >> 32775256

Identification of key differentially expressed genes between ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and ER-negative/HER2-negative breast cancer using integrated bioinformatics analysis.

Siyuan Gan1, Haixia Dai2, Rujia Li1, Wang Liu3, Ruifang Ye1, Yanping Ha1, Xiaoqing Di4, Wenhua Hu4, Zhi Zhang5, Yanqin Sun1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for various subtypes of breast cancer (BC) are different based on their distinct molecular characteristics. Therefore, it is very important to identify key differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between ER-positive/HER2-negative BC and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC.
METHODS: Gene expression profiles of GSE22093 and GSE23988 were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. There were 74 ER-positive/HER2-negative BC tissues and 85 ER-negative/HER2-negative BC tissues in the two profile datasets. DEGs between ER-positive/HER2-negative tissues and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC tissues were identified by the GEO2R tool. The common DEGs among the two datasets were detected with Venn software online. Next, we made use of the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery to analyze enriched Kyoto Encyclopedia of Gene and Genome (KEGG) pathways and gene ontology terms. Then, the protein-protein interactions (PPIs) of these DEGs were visualized by Cytoscape with the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes. Of the proteins in the PPI network, Molecular Complex Detection plug-in analysis identified nine core upregulated genes and one core downregulated gene. UALCAN and Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis were applied to determine the expression of these 10 genes in BC. Furthermore, for the analysis of overall survival among those genes, the Kaplan-Meier method was implemented.
RESULTS: Ninety-three common DEGs (63 upregulated and 30 downregulated) were identified. KEGG pathway enrichment analysis showed that upregulated DEGs were particularly enriched in the progesterone-mediated oocyte maturation pathway. In addition, PGR might be a prognostic biomarker for ER-positive/HER2-negative BC. CCND1 is a poor prognostic biomarker for ER-positive/HER2-negative BC and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC. Moreover, TFF1, AGR2 and EGFR might be predictive biomarkers of node metastasis in ER-positive/HER2-negative BC and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC.
CONCLUSIONS: CCND1, AGR2, PGR, TFF1 and EGFR are the key DEGs between ER-positive/HER2-negative BC and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC. Further studies are required to confirm the functions of the identified genes. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer (BC); bioinformatics analysis; estrogen receptor (ER); human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2); key differentially expressed genes

Year:  2020        PMID: 32775256      PMCID: PMC7347802          DOI: 10.21037/gs.2020.03.40

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  33 in total

1.  Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources.

Authors:  Da Wei Huang; Brad T Sherman; Richard A Lempicki
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 2.  A perspective on anti-EGFR therapies targeting triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Katsuya Nakai; Mien-Chie Hung; Hirohito Yamaguchi
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 6.166

Review 3.  DNA repair and damage pathways in breast cancer development and therapy.

Authors:  Maryam Majidinia; Bahman Yousefi
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2017-04-21

Review 4.  Breast cancer.

Authors:  Nadia Harbeck; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Javier Cortes; Michael Gnant; Nehmat Houssami; Philip Poortmans; Kathryn Ruddy; Janice Tsang; Fatima Cardoso
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 52.329

5.  Evaluation of CCND1 amplification and CyclinD1 expression: diffuse and strong staining of CyclinD1 could have same predictive roles as CCND1 amplification in ER positive breast cancers.

Authors:  Zhishuang Li; Jingjing Cui; Qiong Yu; Xiaojuan Wu; Aifeng Pan; Li Li
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 4.060

Review 6.  Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer: Past, present and future.

Authors:  Andrea Nicolini; Paola Ferrari; Michael J Duffy
Journal:  Semin Cancer Biol       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 15.707

Review 7.  A combination of the PI3K pathway inhibitor plus cell cycle pathway inhibitor to combat endocrine resistance in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a genomic algorithm-based treatment approach.

Authors:  Anita Gul; Brain Leyland-Jones; Nandini Dey; Pradip De
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 6.166

Review 8.  Targeted Therapies in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Frederik Marmé; Andreas Schneeweiss
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  GEPIA: a web server for cancer and normal gene expression profiling and interactive analyses.

Authors:  Zefang Tang; Chenwei Li; Boxi Kang; Ge Gao; Cheng Li; Zemin Zhang
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Determining consistent prognostic biomarkers of overall survival and vascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Otília Menyhárt; Ádám Nagy; Balázs Győrffy
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  1 in total

1.  Crocodylus porosus Sera a Potential Source to Identify Novel Epigenetic Targets: In Silico Analysis.

Authors:  Ruqaiyyah Siddiqui; Jibran Sualeh Muhammad; Sutherland K Maciver; Naveed Ahmed Khan
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-04-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.