En-Hui Ren1,2, Ya-Jun Deng2, Wen-Hua Yuan2, Zuo-Long Wu2, Guang-Zhi Zhang2, Qi-Qi Xie3,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Xining First People's Hospital, Xining, Qinghai, 810000, People's Republic of China. 2. Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, 730000, People's Republic of China. 3. Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, 730000, People's Republic of China. jieqq16@lzu.edu.cn. 4. Breast Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Qinghai University, Xining, 810000, People's Republic of China. jieqq16@lzu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ewing sarcoma (ES) is one of the most common malignant bone tumors in children and adolescents. The immune microenvironment plays an important role in the development of ES. Here, we developed an optimal signature for determining ES patient prognosis based on immune-related genes (IRGs). METHODS: We analyzed the ES gene expression profile dataset, GSE17679, from the GEO database and extracted differential expressed IRGs (DEIRGs). Then, we conducted functional correlation and protein-protein interaction (PPI) analyses of the DEIRGs and used the machine learning algorithm-iterative Lasso Cox regression analysis to build an optimal DEIRG signature. In addition, we applied ES samples from the ICGC database to test the optimal gene signature. We performed univariate and multivariate Cox regressions on clinicopathological characteristics and optimal gene signature to evaluate whether signature is an important prognostic factor. Finally, we calculated the infiltration of 24 immune cells in ES using the ssGSEA algorithm, and analyzed the correlation between the DEIRGs in the optimal gene signature and immune cells. RESULTS: A total of 249 DEIRGs were screened and an 11-gene signature with the strongest correlation with patient prognoses was analyzed using a machine learning algorithm. The 11-gene signature also had a high prognostic value in the ES external verification set. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that 11-gene signature is an independent prognostic factor. We found that macrophages and cytotoxic, CD8 T, NK, mast, B, NK CD56bright, TEM, TCM, and Th2 cells were significantly related to patient prognoses; the infiltration of cytotoxic and CD8 T cells in ES was significantly different. By correlating prognostic biomarkers with immune cell infiltration, we found that FABP4 and macrophages, and NDRG1 and Th2 cells had the strongest correlation. CONCLUSION: Overall, the IRG-related 11-gene signature can be used as a reliable ES prognostic biomarker and can provide guidance for personalized ES therapy.
PURPOSE:Ewing sarcoma (ES) is one of the most common malignant bone tumors in children and adolescents. The immune microenvironment plays an important role in the development of ES. Here, we developed an optimal signature for determining ES patient prognosis based on immune-related genes (IRGs). METHODS: We analyzed the ES gene expression profile dataset, GSE17679, from the GEO database and extracted differential expressed IRGs (DEIRGs). Then, we conducted functional correlation and protein-protein interaction (PPI) analyses of the DEIRGs and used the machine learning algorithm-iterative Lasso Cox regression analysis to build an optimal DEIRG signature. In addition, we applied ES samples from the ICGC database to test the optimal gene signature. We performed univariate and multivariate Cox regressions on clinicopathological characteristics and optimal gene signature to evaluate whether signature is an important prognostic factor. Finally, we calculated the infiltration of 24 immune cells in ES using the ssGSEA algorithm, and analyzed the correlation between the DEIRGs in the optimal gene signature and immune cells. RESULTS: A total of 249 DEIRGs were screened and an 11-gene signature with the strongest correlation with patient prognoses was analyzed using a machine learning algorithm. The 11-gene signature also had a high prognostic value in the ES external verification set. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that 11-gene signature is an independent prognostic factor. We found that macrophages and cytotoxic, CD8 T, NK, mast, B, NK CD56bright, TEM, TCM, and Th2 cells were significantly related to patient prognoses; the infiltration of cytotoxic and CD8 T cells in ES was significantly different. By correlating prognostic biomarkers with immune cell infiltration, we found that FABP4 and macrophages, and NDRG1 and Th2 cells had the strongest correlation. CONCLUSION: Overall, the IRG-related 11-gene signature can be used as a reliable ES prognostic biomarker and can provide guidance for personalized ES therapy.
Authors: M Ashburner; C A Ball; J A Blake; D Botstein; H Butler; J M Cherry; A P Davis; K Dolinski; S S Dwight; J T Eppig; M A Harris; D P Hill; L Issel-Tarver; A Kasarskis; S Lewis; J C Matese; J E Richardson; M Ringwald; G M Rubin; G Sherlock Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Gabriela Bindea; Bernhard Mlecnik; Marie Tosolini; Amos Kirilovsky; Maximilian Waldner; Anna C Obenauf; Helen Angell; Tessa Fredriksen; Lucie Lafontaine; Anne Berger; Patrick Bruneval; Wolf Herman Fridman; Christoph Becker; Franck Pagès; Michael R Speicher; Zlatko Trajanoski; Jérôme Galon Journal: Immunity Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Ana Teresa Amaral; Cecilia Garofalo; Roberta Frapolli; Maria Cristina Manara; Caterina Mancarella; Sarah Uboldi; Silvana Di Giandomenico; Jose Luis Ordóñez; Victoria Sevillano; Roberta Malaguarnera; Piero Picci; A Bass Hassan; Enrique De Alava; Maurizio D'Incalci; Katia Scotlandi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tanya Barrett; Stephen E Wilhite; Pierre Ledoux; Carlos Evangelista; Irene F Kim; Maxim Tomashevsky; Kimberly A Marshall; Katherine H Phillippy; Patti M Sherman; Michelle Holko; Andrey Yefanov; Hyeseung Lee; Naigong Zhang; Cynthia L Robertson; Nadezhda Serova; Sean Davis; Alexandra Soboleva Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Dagmar Berghuis; Marco W Schilham; Susy J Santos; Suvi Savola; Helen J Knowles; Uta Dirksen; Karl-Ludwig Schaefer; Jukka Vakkila; Pancras Cw Hogendoorn; Arjan C Lankester Journal: Clin Sarcoma Res Date: 2012-12-18
Authors: Sanchita Bhattacharya; Patrick Dunn; Cristel G Thomas; Barry Smith; Henry Schaefer; Jieming Chen; Zicheng Hu; Kelly A Zalocusky; Ravi D Shankar; Shai S Shen-Orr; Elizabeth Thomson; Jeffrey Wiser; Atul J Butte Journal: Sci Data Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Florencia Cidre-Aranaz; Sarah Watson; James F Amatruda; Takuro Nakamura; Olivier Delattre; Enrique de Alava; Uta Dirksen; Thomas G P Grünewald Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: Haoyu Ren; Alexandr V Bazhin; Elise Pretzsch; Sven Jacob; Haochen Yu; Jiang Zhu; Markus Albertsmeier; Lars H Lindner; Thomas Knösel; Jens Werner; Martin K Angele; Florian Bösch Journal: Mol Ther Oncolytics Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 7.200