| Literature DB >> 33084485 |
Mengdi Wan1, Binyu Zhuang1, Xiao Dai1, Liang Zhang1, Fangqing Zhao1, Yan You1.
Abstract
Metabolic reprogramming is a common hallmark of tumor cells and is a crucial mediator of resistance toward anticancer therapies. The pattern of a metabolism-related signature in melanoma remains unknown. Here, we explored the role of a multi-metabolism-related gene signature in melanoma.We used the training and validation sets to develop a multi-metabolism-related gene signature. Cox regression analysis and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method were used for constructing a model. The predictive role of the metabolic signature with clinicopathological features of melanoma was also analyzed. Functional analysis of this metabolic signature was also investigated.A ten metabolism-related gene signature was identified and can stratify melanoma into high- and low- risk groups. The signature was correlated with progressive T stage, Breslow thickness, Clark level, and worse survival (all Ps< 0.01). This metabolic signature was shown as an independent prognostic factor and was also a predictive indicator for worse survival in various clinical and molecular features of melanoma. Furthermore, the metabolic signature was implicated in immune responses such as the regulation of T cell activation and cytokine activity. The metabolic signaturewas associated with the progression and worse survival of melanoma. Our study offered a valuable metabolism-targeted therapy approach for melanoma.Entities:
Keywords: Metabolism; immune; melanoma; prognosis; progression
Year: 2020 PMID: 33084485 PMCID: PMC8291831 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2020.1822714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Baseline characteristics of the study population
| Training set | Validation set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | | Number of cases | % | Number of cases | % |
| Age | Median: 58 (15–90 years) | Median: 58 (18–92 years) | |||
| ≥ 60 | 219 | 47.8 | 58 | 47.2 | |
| < 60 | 239 | 52.2 | 65 | 52.8 | |
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 284 | 62 | 78 | 63.4 | |
| Female | 174 | 38 | 45 | 36.6 | |
| Tumor stage | |||||
| Stage 3–4 | 191 | 45.3 | 123 | 100 | |
| Stage 0–2 | 231 | 54.7 | 0 | 0 | |
| T classification | |||||
| T 3–4 | 240 | 62 | |||
| T 0–2 | 147 | 38 | |||
| Distal metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 23 | 5.3 | |||
| Negative | 409 | 94.7 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 176 | 43.6 | |||
| Negative | 228 | 56.4 | |||
| Clark level | |||||
| IV–V | 217 | 68.9 | |||
| I–III | 98 | 31.1 | |||
| Breslow thickness | |||||
| > 1.5 mm | 249 | 70.5 | |||
| ≤ 1.5 mm | 104 | 29.5 | |||
| Ulceration | |||||
| Positive | 165 | 53.4 | |||
| Negative | 144 | 46.6 | |||
Figure 1.A metabolism-related gene signature in melanoma. (a) T classification; (b) Breslow thickness; (c) Clark level; (d) Age; (e) Gender; (f) Tumor stage; (g) Lymph node metastasis; (h) Distant metastasis
Figure 2.Survival prediction of the metabolism-related gene signature in the training set, the validation set, and the whole set of melanoma samples. (a) Samples sorted by risk score and the corresponding survival status. (b) ROC curve of the metabolism-related gene signature. (c) The Kaplan–Meier curves of metabolism-related gene signature (the high- and low-risk groups)
Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses of the metabolism-related signature
| Variables | HR with 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| Training set | ||
| Univariate analysis | ||
| Our signature (high vs. low) | 2.72 (2.05–3.62) | < 0.0001 |
| Age (≥ 60 vs. < 60 years) | 1.62 (1.22–2.16) | 0.0008 |
| Gender (male vs. female) | 1.17 (0.87–1.57) | 0.29 |
| Tumor Stage (stage 3–4 vs. stage 0–2) | 1.72 (1.28–2.32) | 0.0004 |
| T classification (T 3–4 vs. T 0–2) | 1.95 (1.42–2.66) | < 0.0001 |
| Distal metastasis (positive vs. negative) | 1.64 (0.83–3.20) | 0.152 |
| Lymph node metastasis (positive vs. negative) | 1.77 (1.31–2.40) | 0.0002 |
| Breslow thickness (>1.5 vs. ≤ 1.5 mm) | 2.23 (1.58–3.17) | < 0.0001 |
| Clark level (IV–V vs. I–III) | 2.11 (1.47–3.03) | < 0.0001 |
| Ulceration (positive vs. negative) | 1.98 (1.40–2.81) | 0.0001 |
| Multivariate analysis | ||
| Our signature (high vs. low) | 2.00 (1.32–3.02) | 0.001 |
| Age (≥ 60 vs. < 60 years) | 1.07 (0.71–1.62) | 0.7444 |
| Tumor Stage (stage 3–4 vs. stage 0–2) | 0.86 (0.26–2.81) | 0.8058 |
| T classification (T 3–4 vs. T 0–2) | 0.93 (0.46–1.88) | 0.8466 |
| Lymph node metastasis (positive vs. negative) | 2.83 (0.86–9.27) | 0.0858 |
| Breslow thickness (>1.5 vs. ≤ 1.5 mm) | 1.42 (0.66–3.05) | 0.3709 |
| Clark level (IV–V vs. I–III) | 1.21 (0.73–1.99) | 0.4604 |
| Ulceration (positive vs. negative) | 1.64 (1.09–2.45) | 0.017 |
| Validation set | ||
| Univariate analysis | ||
| Our signature (high vs. low) | 3.59 (2.13–6.06) | < 0.0001 |
| Age (≥ 60 vs. < 60 years) | 1.53 (0.95–2.46) | 0.0802 |
| Gender (Male vs. female) | 0.99 (0.61–1.61) | 0.982 |
| Multivariate analysis | ||
| Our signature (high vs. low) | 3.44 (2.02–5.86) | < 0.0001 |
| Age (≥ 60 vs. < 60 years) | 1.23 (0.76–1.99) | 0.404 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 6.The functional analysis of the metabolism-related gene signature. MF: molecular function; BP: biological process; CC: cellular component